1951-03-02

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief statement to make concerning the final settlement of the five-year wheat pool.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the applause might be deferred until I make the statement.
As the house is aware, there have been discussions with the United Kingdom government on several occasions concerning article 2(b) of the wheat agreement entered into in 1946-the so-called "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom government has made it clear that no further payment will be made by them under that agreement. Hon. members may also have seen an announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on February 20 that the United Kingdom will not draw further on the remainder of the credit of $1,250 million which was made available in May, 1946, and which expires on December 31, 1951.
The government has decided to recommend to parliament that an amount equal to the balance of the United Kingdom credit, namely, $65 million, be added to the sums now awaiting distribution in settlement of the five-year pool. The amount will be included in the final supplementary estimates for the fiscal year 1950-51 which are shortly to be placed before the house for approval.
The contribution we will be asking parliament to make is the equivalent of about 23 cents per bushel on the deliveries made during the last two years of the agreement to which article 2(b) had reference. The addition of $65 million to the pool would make a total of approximately $120 million for distribution. On the basis of deliveries of 1,428 million bushels during the period of the five-year pool, this would provide a final payment of about 8-3 cents per bushel. Final payments will be made as soon as possible after parliament has dealt with the supplementary estimates.	>


Mr. Fair:: When will the balance of the
loss of approximately 30 cents a bushel on
the five-year wheat pool be made up to the farmers of the prairie provinces?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I have
announced the decision of the government; and on this occasion I am not going to express any opinion or add anything to the declaration I have made.


Mr. Argue:: Even though the announcement is completely unsatisfactory, in my opinion-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the farmers may expect that their cheques will be mailed.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday I was asked when the interim payments would begin, and I stated that they would begin that day, which was my information at that time. I telephoned through to Winnipeg to confirm that statement, and was told there had been some delay in obtaining the cheque forms and that payment would start on March 9; but 1 was told that extra staff would be put on so that in the long run there would be no delay in getting out the interim payments. The cheques in settlement of the five-year pool will go out just as soon as the other payments have been completed. The equipment will be kept working at full speed, provided always that parliament has voted the necessary money by that time.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the Prime Minister when it is expected that the supplementary estimate dealing with this wheat payment will be brought down? Will it be soon?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It will be included in the final supplementary estimates for 1950-51 about which the Minister of Finance gave information yesterday.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Fulton be substituted for that of Mr. Diefenbaker on the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Eileen McDermott McRandall.-Mr. Winkler..
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Laurice Mary Michel Shatilla.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Mihaly Kovacs.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Rebecca Glicofsky Brown.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Selma Rokowsky Kirzner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Ferdinand Langlois.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Violet Edith Macdonald Harris.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Frangoise Brunet Crassowski.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Emily Rita Rowlands Simpson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Ivy Lucas Levitt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Marguerite Marie Rita Fournier Cook.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Paul Emile Piuze.-Mr. Winkler.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That on Monday, the fifth day of March, 1951, and every Monday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except the introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Bater (The Battlefords):: Has the
Minister of Justice received from the premier of Saskatchewan a reply to his letters of January 2 and January 20 forwarding two proposed amendments to the British North America Act respecting old age pensions and the provincial sales tax; and if so, will the minister state the nature of the reply?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Yes; a written reply was received dated February 5, 1951, in which Premier Douglas stated he was satisfied that the two proposed constitutional amendments would carry out the spirit and intent of the decisions arrived at during the federal-provincial conference of last December.


Major James William Coldwell: Have similar replies been received from other provinces?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not similar replies. Replies have been received from all the provinces, but not all have expressed the same sentiments of agreement.


Major James William Coldwell: Could we have the other replies tabled?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They will be tabled in due
course. Some have been tabled already.



EMBARKATION LEAVE FOR CANADIAN BRIGADE PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Has the
government decided whether or not the members of the special Korean brigade who are about to embark at Fort Lewis for Korea will be granted embarkation leave?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: The great majority of the members of the 25th brigade have already had embarkation leave. Any who have not had that leave will have it, in addition to the time necessary for travel.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Is the minister able to announce as yet which of the airports in western Canada will be reopened for the training of R.C.A.F. personnel?


Brooke Claxton: No, sir; I am not yet in a
position to do so.



FEED GRAINS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: I should
like to ask the Minister of Agriculture or the Prime Minister if any assurance can yet be given, in connection with the subsidy on feed grain for stock raisers, dairymen, and poultrymen, more particularly in eastern Canada, that payments will be made say for the next fiscal year, or that it has been adopted) as a permanent policy. It is important that they know as soon as possible if this is a long-term undertaking. I think the question is particularly appropriate in view of the large amounts of money being distributed in western Canada.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: -Since we have had this freight assistance the practice has been to put sufficient in the general estimates to carry us down to the end of the crop year in which we are operating. This year sufficient was

put in the estimates to carry us to July 31 next, paying the rates that have been paid during the last year. Between now and that time final consideration will be given by the government to the policy for the future, and it will be announced to the house in due course.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 24, to confer certain emergency powers upon the governor in council-Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 3-Penalties.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: Just before the house rose last evening the leader of the opposition asked a question which is reported at page 832 of Hansard in these terms:
I referred to subsection 2 of section 3 which starts with the words:
"Any goods, wares or merchandise dealt with contrary to any order or regulation made under this act. . ."
I was pointing out that this is really a rewriting of section 8 of the War Measures Act, but that a portion at the beginning of that section had been omitted. That portion referred to any ship or vessel used or moved. There must be some reason why section 8 of the War Measures Act has been carried in as section 3, subsection 2, but with these deletions.
The answer to my hon. friend's question is that this wording which appears in the present bill is taken from the corresponding section of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. In that act, and in the present bill, the words "any ship or vessel used or moved", which occurred at the beginning of section 8 of the War Measures Act, to which my hon. friend referred, were omitted because of the fact that in the period following the last war which was covered by the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, and, in the period covered by the present bill, wartime convoys and wartime shipping control are not in operation; so there is no reason for these words being included.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
The Chairman:: We shall now revert to section 2, subsection 4. There is an amendment before the committee.
On subsection 4 of section 2-Annulment of orders in council by Senate and House of Commons resolution.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I believe there are two amendments, The thought was that the section should be left in the committee with a view to ascertaining what could be done toward 80709-531
Emergency Powers Act drafting a new amendment which would incorporate the substance of the two amendments. This has been done, and I have given the member for Eglinton a copy of it. If he has had time to consider it, I shall be glad to move it and explain it.


Mr. Fleming:: The Minister of Justice was good enough to let me see a copy of the amendment. I may say at once that I am quite satisfied with it. I believe it meets the points I sought to raise with respect to the language of section 2, subsection 4.
There is another question that I raised concerning the concluding words of section 2, subsection 4, but that is a different matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I believe it is covered too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, the minister is right. I proposed that all the words after the word "effect" in line 44 be omitted. He has accomplished the two purposes in this amendment, and I am entirely satisfied with it.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) withdrawn.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Then I would move, Mr. Chairman:
That subclause 4 of clause 2 of Bill 24 be amended by deleting the words "regulation as defined in the Regulations Act made under this act is laid before parliament in accordance with the Regulations Act" and substituting therefor "regulation is laid before parliament in accordance with subsection 4" and by deleting all that part after the word "effect" in line 44 and by renumbering the said subclause as subclause 5;
And that clause 2 be further amended by inserting between subclauses 3 and 5 the following subclause numbered 4:
"In respect of a regulation made under this act, the period for laying a regulation before parliament under section 7 of the Regulations Act is
(a)	five days after the making of a regulation if it is made by the governor in council, and
(b)	fifteen days after the making of the regulation in the case of any other regulation,
or if parliament is not then in session, a like period after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof."
If this amendment is carried, then the new subsection 5 will read as follows:
"If the Senate and House of Commons within a period of forty days, beginning with the day on which any regulation is laid before parliament in accordance with subsection 4 and excluding any time during which parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both the Senate and House of Commons are adjourned for more than four days, resolve that it be annulled, it shall cease to have effect."
Subsections 4 and 5 of section 2 as amended agreed to.
Section 2 as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.

Defence Production Act DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT



CREATION OF NEW DEPARTMENT


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the second reading of Bill No. 77, respecting the department of defence production.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to speak at length on this bill. The Prime Minister has already pointed out the need for a separate department to carry out the procurement functions needed for the defence program, and to control essential materials to meet these requirements.
The bill before the house is designed to do three things. In the first place, it will establish a department of defence production. Second, it would confer powers on the minister with respect to procurement very similar to those formerly held by the minister of munitions and supply. Third, it would confer powers on the governor in council and on the minister to control essential materials in substantially the same terms as the present Essential Materials (Defence) Act.
It is proposed that the act would expire on July 31, 1956. There is no particular significance to this date, other than to recognize that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature. Bearing in mind the present situation, and the program which has been announced by my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), a period of five years seems a reasonable minimum for the duration of the act. In the bill, provision is also made for the repeal of the Essential Materials (Defence) Act and for the suspension of the Defence Supplies Act during the period of operation of the Defence Production Act.
The more detailed proposals under each of the three heads that I have mentioned are as follows:
Departmental organization and responsibility.-There are the usual provisions for a minister and a deputy minister. Departmental staff is to be employed as far as possible under the normal procedures of the Civil Service Act, although the minister with the approval of the governor in council is to be given special authority to engage personnel outside the normal procedure. The temporary nature of the act, and the special nature of the staff to be recruited, make this course advisable. Because of the specialized nature of much of the work to be done by the new department it is expected the staff
[Mr. Garson.l

will need many skills and abilities not normally available to the public service. Since the act will be temporary, these employees will not come under the Superannuation Act, but arrangements are being made to protect existing contributors.
The bill also provides that crown companies may be set up to assist the minister in the administration of the act. The efficiency of this technique of operation needs little explanation to anyone who has had experience with it during the last war. The bill provides that the minister may authorize departmental staff to act on his behalf and he may employ companies to act as agents of the crown. There are the usual provisions relating to actions against crown companies.
The responsibilities of the minister include the administration of the act, the exclusive procurement of defence supplies, and the construction of defence projects for the Department of National Defence. In addition, the minister is to be responsible for Canadian Arsenals Limited, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, Defence Construction Limited, Polymer Corporation Limited, Jdorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited and its subsidiary, Northern Transportation Company (1947) Limited, and Canadian Commeicial Corporation. Provision is made to transfer the administration in relation to these matters from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In connection with defence procurement, the bill igives the minister powers to undertake the organization of industry for defence purposes. In this connection, he will be authorized to require returns from persons who have defence supplies or the facilities to produce them, and from those constructing defence projects or having facilities for storage.
Procurement and production.-The powers proposed to be conferred on the minister for procurement include acquiring, holding and disposing of defence supplies; manufacturing or producing them; or operating facilities for these purposes. The powers also cover the construction and maintenance of defence projects, and permit the minister to employ commercial services and acquire property for these purposes. The bill also provides for authority to make loans or advances to assist in carrying out these functions.
It is also proposed that there should be a defence production revolving fund of $100 million for the following three purposes: (a) to finance stockpiling of defence supplies which include strategic materials; (b) to make loans or advances to aid in defence procurement, for example, working capital loans or advance payments on contracts, but not including advance for capital purpose; (c) to

permit the department to make initial payments for defence supplies, which will be subsequently reimbursed by the Department of National Defence. While there was no provision for a revolving fund in the Munitions and Supply Act, the procedure was actually followed during the last war under the War Measures Act and the War Appropriation Act. It was found to be the only practicable method of dealing with many of the situations that arose.
The provisions requiring prior approval by the governor in council of contracts entered into by the minister are substantially those now contained in the Defence Supplies Act.
In relation to defence contracts, the minister would have powers (a) to direct that they be performed in priority to the contractors' other work or within a fixed period, as is now provided under the Defence Supplies Act; (b) to renegotiate in a similar way to that provided under the Department of Munitions and Supply Act with an appeal to the exchequer court-this will not apply to contracts entered into before the act comes into force; (c) to direct an investigation into the performance of defence contracts; and (d) to appoint a controller to operate a person's business if he is not carrying out a defence contract properly or if he fails to keep proper books or accounts.
The minister would also have power to direct a person, for fair and reasonable compensation, to store defence supplies or to undertake production. The minister could also requisition defence supplies necessary for defence purposes in return for reasonable compensation in much the same way as is now provided under the Defence Supplies Act. In each case, provision is made for an appeal to the exchequer court.
Control of essential markets.-In connection with essential materials, the powers to be conferred are identical with those under the Essential Materials (Defence) Act. The plan is that the governor in council may designate "materials or substances" which are considered necessary to control ini order to ensure availability of defence supplies. The governor in council may make regulations, and the minister has wide powers of control, in relation to materials so designated.
It is under these powers of the Essential Materials (Defence) Act that the steel limitation orders have been issued. Similarly, although formal orders have not been issued in the field of non-ferrous metals, the producers of the five principal metals are now operating a plan of rationing whereby deliveries to their customers are regulated. In the case of nickel each customer may be supplied
Defence Production Act with primary metal on the basis of 65 per cent of his average monthly purchases during 1950. In the cases of copper, zinc, aluminum and lead the basis is 100 per cent of his average monthly purchases during 1950.
One important addition that is made to previous powers, and that runs throughout the whole bill, is provision for powers of procurement and of regulation of essential materials to be used by the minister for the benefit of associated governments; that is, for member nations of the commonwealth, North Atlantic treaty nations, and for nations whose defence the governor in council considers vital to Canada.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has already mentioned, I have, at his request, supervised the drafting of this bill, and I have also given a good deal of thought to the type of organization that will be needed to deal with matters pertaining to defence production and supply. In the Department of Trade and Commerce we have, in the last few months, been attempting to lay the foundation for an organization to carry out these functions. The steps taken so far have been under the authority of the Essential Materials (Defence) Act and the Defence Supplies Act. These have included the establishment of separate units within the Department of Trade and Commerce to deal with steel, base metals, explosives and chemicals, priorities and finance, and the setting up of a crown company to deal with defence construction. Arrangements will be made to have all of these come under the direction of the Minister of Defence Production.
Present plans being suggested for the new department provide for the setting up of three main operating branches, together with a number of auxiliary branches to service the main branches and the department as a whole.
First of all, there would be a branch concerned with the major production programs. In this branch there would be divisions, or where necessary, crown companies, to deal with the production of vehicles, ammunition, guns and armament, et cetera, and in such fields as aircraft, shipbuilding, construction and electronics. I announced February 28 that we had been successful in securing the services of Crawford Gordon, Jr., of Toronto, to act as co-ordinator of this branch. Some months ago I announced the appointment of R. G. Johnson to direct the construction program through the facilities of a crown company, Defence Construction Limited, of which he is president. I can now announce the appointments of J. M. Cochrane of Windsor, Ontario, to direct the vehicle program; E. Barker of Toronto to direct the machine tool

Defence Production Act division; and H. R. Malley, president of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, to direct the gun and ammunition division. Other appointments will be announced as made for such programs as aircraft, shipbuilding, electronics, and any other divisions that it may be found necessary to establish.
The second main branch of the department would concern itself with materials needed to carry out the defence program. A number of the divisions which would form this branch have, as I have said already, been established in the Department of Trade and Commerce. We have a steel division under the direction of Kenneth S. Harris; a nonferrous metals division under the direction of F. V. C. Hewett; a chemicals division under the direction of J. R. Donald, who served in the same capacity in the Department of Munitions and Supply during the last war; a petroleum division under the direction of Dr. Oliver Hopkins; and a priorities division under the direction of Henry J. Sissons. These five divisions are already in operation, or are in the process of formation, and would be transferred to the new department. Others would be established as circumstances dictate.
The third main branch of the new department would be the general purchasing branch, which would consist of the central organization of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. The Canadian Commercial Corporation now acts as an agent of the minister in carrying out procurement of the requirements of the three services. With a separate department of defence production, the general purchasing would be carried out as a direct function of the department and the great majority of the staff of the Canadian Commercial Corporation would be transferred to the department for that purpose. This branch would be responsible for the procurement of all items that were not the direct responsibility of the production or materials branches that I have described. It is not proposed, however, to wind up the corporation as such, but rather to retain it as a special agency to handle transactions with other governments or to engage in the bulk purchasing or stockpiling of any defence supplies or strategic materials that may be necessary. The corporation, with such terms of reference, would probably fulfil a role not dissimilar to that filled by War Supplies Limited during the last war.
In addition to these three main branches, there would be a financial adviser, who, with his staff, would be concerned with the general financial policy of the department, involving such matters as capital assistance, accelerated depreciation and problems of renegotiation and profit limitation. I was pleased to be

able to announce the other day that the government had been successful in securing the services of Mr. Harold G. Hesler, of Montreal, to fill this important post.
Then there would, of course, have to be a legal branch, an administration branch, a controller's branch, and an economics and statistics branch, as well as a branch dealing with the various types of international relations with which the department would be concerned. The latter involves arrangements with NATO, problems relating to the allocation and distribution of assistance made available to our North Atlantic treaty allies, and general questions in the international field such as the allocation of raw materials on an international basis.
In the development of the program thus far, and in laying plans for the future, I have been greatly assisted by numerous individuals in the business community who have been most generous in the giving of their time and advice. In addition, I would like to mention specifically the help that has been rendered by two organizations.
The first is the industrial defence board originally set up by my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), and subsequently transferred under my jurisdiction. Under the able chairmanship of Mr. H. J. Carmichael, who so successfully filled the role in the last war of co-ordinator of production, this board has rendered valuable service in examining various proposals from industry and in making recommendations. Most of the members of that board will be associated with the defence production program in some direct capacity. With the proposal to establish a separate department of defence production, it therefore seems unnecessary to continue the industrial defence board as such. The board was established just three years ago and as its members were appointed for a three-year term, it is proposed that the board should wind up its activities and disband within the next month or so. I should like at this time to extend the thanks of the government to the members of this board for the excellent service that they have .rendered.
The other agency to which I wish to refer is the Canadian Industrial Preparedness Association. This organization was established several years ago on a voluntary basis by a number of manufacturers who felt that, in the event of another emergency, they would be directly involved in the production of war supplies. The organization, which consists of a number of individual industry groups, has concerned itself with the steps that private industry could take to prepare for just such a period as we are now entering, which calls for greatly expanded defence

production. Much valuable work has been done by the organization, but I might mention specifically the service that they rendered in connection with the visits to Canada of the various task forces of the North Atlantic treaty organization. These task forces were concerned with developing information on the productive capabilities of the various members of the North Atlantic treaty. The association took the responsibility for reception of these visitors to Canada, and organized their inspection of the various plants in which they were interested. This association is not government sponsored, but we welcome its existence and look forward to a very close association with it in the future.
In introducing this bill at this time, the government is carrying out plans for war mobilization that it has been developing over the past few years. The experience in the last war showed the wisdom of building a separate department for defence production. Since the end of the last war, the nucleus of such a department has been retained. What is now proposed is to expand this nucleus to meet the increasing demands upon it and to establish a special department of government which should be vested with wide powers. Some of these powers are ones that are appropriate at any time, whether in peace, in war, or in the present state of international tension. By and large, these are the powers that are now contained in the Defence Supplies Act, which, hon. members will notice, is only being suspended during the life of the present proposed act. Other powers are of an extraordinary nature but fitted to the extraordinary circumstances of today.
There will be little disagreement in any part of the house that speed in getting on with the defence preparations is of the utmost importance. This need for speed dictates the need for special powers both to requisition supplies and to direct production, as well as special authority to renegotiate contracts. The government makes no apology for asking for these extensive powers at this time, and the record of its administration of similar powers which it exercised during the last war speaks for itself.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill, as members of the official opposition see it, is to set up a department of defence production, whose main aim will be the purchasing of defence supplies for Canada and for her allies. Because we believe that to be the main principle of the bill we propose to support it. However, we do ask that the
Defence Production Act members of the government, and the members of the house, give further consideration to some of the terms which are set out in this bill. The minister himself described them accurately in the last moment of his speech when he said they were extraordinary powers.
In addition to setting up a department, this bill interferes drastically with the rights of the individual Canadian, and also overrides parliament to a degree which we believe unnecessary and unwise at this time-in fact, to a degree which is justifiable only when the nation is in the midst of war; and even under those conditions the wisdom of using some of those powers is very questionable.
In fact, this bill gives the minister full wartime powers. It is a war bill. It gives him all the powers that would be required if we were in a third world war. But that is not the position. The country is not in a third world war. The policy of Canada, and also the policy of the other free nations, is to become strong quickly and thus prevent war, and to continue strong in the hope that eventually Russia will decide that cooperation is the best policy.
I read in some of the journals that the Americans expect to reach the apex of their strength within the next year or two, and that then they will level off at that strength. In other words it is their intention to continue strong. The position here in Canada was very clearly outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself when he spoke to the Liberal federation in this city earlier this week, upon which occasion he said:
Today we are trying to prevent world war III. That, too, is going to require a tremendous effort: but it is going to be different in many ways from what we were doing ten or eleven years ago. Some of the things we did then have to be done again. But other things called' for to win a shooting war are completely unsuited to the task of preventing a shooting war.
As we see it, this policy adopted by Canada, and agreed to by all members in the house, is a long-term policy. If it succeeds it will prevent war; but we must all admit that it is bound to be a long-term policy. Canada is in for a long pull; this is no short-term plan that we have adopted. That fact must be kept in mind when considering a bill of this kind, and particularly the wartime powers given under the bill.
As the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) explained quite frankly today, the powers in the bill are derived largely from the old Department of Munitions and Supply Act, which was passed in 1939 after the outbreak of war, was amended in 1940 to give additional powers, and was further
840	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act amended in 1943 to give further powers, with the result that as finally amended it gave the then minister of munitions and supply, who is now Minister of Trade and Commerce, the widest possible powers that could be written in the English language.
The minister himself explained that very clearly last June when he was speaking in the debate on the Defence Supplies Act. I would refer hon. members to page 3489 of Hansard for June 12, 1950, where he said:
The Munitions and Supply Act was wartime legislation which gave the minister the widest possible powers; power to renegotiate contracts, power to order a man to accept a contract at prices fixed by the minister, and various other arbitrary powers.
All those powers, and more, are included in the bill now before us. It contains the provisions of an act known as the Essential Materials (Defence) Act, which was passed at the special session last fall. In the debate on that bill the minister made a statement as to the powers he was taking. It appears at page 448 of Hansard for that special session, at which point, referring to the Essential Materials (Defence) Act he said:
We believe that, barring a major emergency, the powers of the act will be sufficient to cope with the problem we anticipate.
That was last September. In addition to the powers contained in the two acts to which I have just referred, there are here also additional powers, such as the setting up of a revolving fund of $100 million, and various other provisions.
I propose to outline some of these powers the need for which at this time we question. They are powers which interfere with the rights of the individual Canadian, and we believe sincerely that they should be considered again by the government and the house before they are put in statute form.
The first is the power to force a person to enter into a contract. Whether he wants to contract or not, under the provisions of section 23 of the bill he can be compelled to do so. That is the power to which the minister referred last June when he mentioned a power "to order a man to accept a contract at prices fixed by the minister". It should be remembered too that practically all of these powers are exercised, not by the cabinet but by the minister, and also by anyone the minister may wish to appoint.
Then there is the power to take over that man's business, if he does not comply with the direction to enter into a contract with the government. The minister or his appointee can take over that man's business in whole or in part and appoint a controller to run the


business, including that portion which has nothing whatever to do with a defence contract. There is a further provision in the bill that such controller will be under no legal liability if he exceeds his authority.
That is a pretty drastic power to be approved by parliament, if indeed we intend to retain here any powers at all. The power to take over a business is found in section 27, and the same section includes power to take over in whole or in part the business of a Canadian who has already entered into a contract. I am now referring to the man who has actually made a contract; the man about whom I spoke a few moments ago was the one who did not contract and was forced by the government to do business with it.
With regard to both of these men we find that if the minister or his appointee thinks that a man is likely to fail to carry out a contract, the business can be taken over. It is not the power of taking it over only if there is failure under the contract, but also of taking it over if the minister or his appointee is satisfied that there will be failure, or that there is likely to be. That decision, whether it is thought that a Canadian is likely to fail, is left entirely in the hands of the minister or the minister's appointee. There may be one appointee to decide with regard to one class of business, another appointee to decide with respect to another class of business and so on.
There is also the very wide power contained in the bill to conduct an investigation into the business of a Canadian. It is contained in section 29. The minister or an appointee of the minister can order an investigator to walk into anybody's business to investigate all the details thereof. Provision is made that if the investigator exceeds his authority he is not liable. He is under no obligation. The businessman who has had his business investigated, and has been caused damage or loss because the investigator has gone too far, has no remedy. That is under the provisions of section 36 of the bill, the same section which exempts a controller who exceeds his authority from any liability.
Then there is a provision that, if the minister or the minister's appointee so directs, a businessman is freed from any obligations which may be imposed upon him by a contract that he has made with someone else, by bylaw of a municipality or by a statute either of this parliament or a provincial legislature. In section 28 there is the power to brush aside municipal bylaws, and laws of this parliament and of provincial legislatures.
There is also the power to which I have been referring which gives the minister the

right to assign all his powers. That is found in section 5, which reads:
The minister may authorize any person, on his behalf and under his control and direction, to do any act or thing or to exercise any power that the minister may do or exercise under this act.
Those are only some of the extraordinary powers contained in the bill which we believe should be considered further before they become law. There are some powers in the bill which we approve. For example, there are powers taken to prevent profiteering. We believe that such powers are properly placed in the bill because no one in a responsible position in Canada today wants any profiteering under present conditions, or for that matter under any other conditions.
There is also in the bill a very strong penalty section setting out the penalties for offences. That is quite a proper provision and we suggest under present conditions the minister should depend on these penalty sections rather than these powers to take over a man's business and all the other extraordinary powers contained in the bill. If a businessman commits an offence under the act, then let him be brought into court where he will get a fair hearing, where he will have a chance to be defended and to have his case properly considered; in that way people will have some rights and not be subject to a touch on the shoulder by somebody appointed by the assistant assistant deputy minister, or something of that kind.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the bill is out of line with the Emergency Powers Act which received third reading a few moments ago. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was careful to point out that he did not want to use the War Measures Act under present conditions. He said this was not the proper time to use that act. He said: We are not in a state of war and we are not in what could be considered a state of apprehended war. Therefore I am proposing to use a special act known as the Emergency Powers Act, not as strong a measure as the War Measures Act. He believed that such a policy was in line with the present times, and we are asking that this bill be of the same type as the Emergency Powers Act; in other words, an act in line with the times. The government cannot have it both ways. If it is wrong to use the War Measures Act under present conditions then it is wrong to use this particular measure. There should be the same kind of act to meet these two different problems.
We are suggesting that the government delete these powers from the bill. In his speech today the minister demonstrated no need for such powers. He did not bother to
Defence Production Act outline any need for the extraordinary powers to which I have referred. He simply said: They are in the bill and there they are going to stay. There was no attempt to justify putting these extraordinary powers into the act.
If the situation deteriorates, if the possibility of war becomes greater, if tension increases, then the house can very quickly amend this act and grant further powers. That was done in 1940. The original Munitions and Supply Department Act was passed at the special session called when war first broke out. It was not proclaimed for many months afterwards. When we met in 1940 for our regular session further powers were given. If the house is not sitting at the time the situation grows worse then the government can take further powers under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act passed a few moments ago. Let us not make these extraordinary powers part of the peacetime statute law of Canada. It is far better to exercise them by order in council under the Emergency Powers Act than to make them a part of the permanent law.
If the government will not agree to that suggestion, if these extraordinary powers must remain in the bill, then let there be some distinction made in the measure between extraordinary powers and the powers to which there can be no objection. That could be done by providing that those sections of the act containing the objectionable powers would be brought into effect only by proclamation. Let them not come into effect when the bill comes into operation, but insert a provision that they can be brought in later by proclamation.
So much for the powers interfering unduly with the rights of the individual. Finally let me deal with the manner in which this bill overrides parliament. There is no provision in the bill requiring this department to file an annual report. In 1949 three new departments were set up, and each of the acts contained this provision with regard to an annual report:
The minister shall submit to parliament within thirty days of the commencement of the first session of parliament in each year a report showing the operations of the department during the year then last preceding.
I do urge that this bill be amended to provide for the filing of an annual report. Such a provision was also contained in the legislation setting up the department of reconstruction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no objection to that
amendment.
842	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act


Howard Charles Green: The minister would have no objection to an amendment of that kind?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will bring in such an
amendment.


Howard Charles Green: I think it will help preserve the rights of parliament if provision is made for an annual report. Then there is no provision whatever in this bill for the tabling of orders in council and regulations enacted under its provisions. I would point out that in the legislation setting up the department of reconstruction, which was chapter 18 of the statutes of 1944, provision was made for the tabling of orders and regulations. That provision is in section 9, dealing with the orders and regulations which were to help carryout the terms of the bill. It reads:
Orders and regulations under this section shall forthwith be published in the Canada Gazette and laid before parliament within fifteen days after they are made if parliament is then sitting, and, if not, then within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.
A similar provision was contained in the Essential Materials (Defence) Act which was passed at the special session last fall. That is also section 9, which reads:
Every order or regulation made by the governor in council under sections three, four or ten shall be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette and shall be laid before parliament within ten days after publication thereof, if parliament is then in session, or, if parliament is not then in session, within ten days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.
So I urge the minister that a similar section be written into this bill providing that these orders in council and regulations be tabled in the House of Commons.
With regard to the time limit, the minister has pointed out that the period provided in the bill is five years; in other words it is continued in effect until 1956. The defence plan outlined a few days ago by the Minister of National Defence covered a period of three years. The Essential Materials (Defence) Act passed during the special session of 1950 was to be in effect for a period of two years. The munitions and supply act passed in 1939 was for a period of three years. Subsequently that time limit was extended but in the original act there was a definite time limit of three years.
Yesterday in the other place-and the minister's parliamentary assistant will correct me if I am wrong-I believe an amendment was made to the Export and Import Permits Act; the provision in the bill as introduced, providing that it would be in effect for five years, was changed by those in the other place to three years. So I urge the minister to agree to cut the length of time during which this legislation will be in existence from five


years to three years-. That would give parliament just that much more opportunity to keep some control over the legislation and over the new department. No harm can be done by making the time limit three years instead of five, and I believe it would be much better if such a change were made.
Then this afternoon the minister made some explanation of the new type of financing provided i>n this bill which includes provision for a revolving fund and also, by the way, for the operation of several crown companies and the right to set up more. We all know how difficult it has always been for parliament to make a proper check of expenditures by these crown corporations. I believe that it will also be very difficult to keep track of the expenditures made under this revolving fund. When the bill gets into committee I hope there will be a full discussion of this question of financing the new department, because we are not yet satisfied that the proposed- system is the proper one.
In conclusion, many of the rights of the individual Canadian and of parliament were given up during the last war, and quite properly so. Those rights have -not yet been fully restored. The policy now is to prevent war; yet we find that these same powers are being taken again, not just for the duration of a war but for an indefinite term, perhaps for five years, perhaps for ten years, perhaps for twenty-five years. We are afraid that if this period should be very long the Canadian people will forget that they ever had these rights. There are young Canadians coming along, and the first thing we know we will have a generation with no knowledge of any system other than giving the government all these rights. That is bound to mean a decrease in the strength and independence of the individual. The same is true of parliament. It will mean a decrease in the strength of the nation.
We do urge upon the minister, and his associates in the government, that they give further consideration to these extraordinary powers contained in this bill, and that they allow time for the private members in the house to give further consideration to those changes. I believe that if that is done we shall be able to work out a bill which will more nearly fit the situation today than the bill under consideration.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). While he was speaking I was thinking of the type of world in which we have lived for the last thirty-five years. I remember very well that the member for Vancouver-Quadra and I served together in

the same company in the first world war. We defended the same stretch of trench, approximately two hundred yards, for a period of several days, when neither of us expected to foe a member of the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, I shall not take the same approach to this question as that taken by the member for Vancouver-Quadra, but I do want to make a few general observations.
I noticed that the minister said this bill had no political significance. This group would disagree with the minister to some extent in that respect. All parties in this house, Mr. Speaker, have expressed support of the principle of this bill. They realize the necessity for the establishment of a department of defence production. Without a doubt this is a most important bill, much more important possibly than many of the Canadian people realize at the moment. It will have a great effect on the economy of this country, and upon the personal lives of the Canadian people. There is no question about that. This group, Mr. Speaker, considers that the defence effort-when I say "this group" I mean the C.C.F. group-is a defence of freedom, and a defence of future opportunities to expand the frontiers of political and economic democracy.
I would judge, Mr. Speaker, after reading the bill that the government considers our defence effort is an effort to maintain capitalist democracy. I believe that is an accurate statement. Evidence of that is found, Mr. Speaker, in its recognition even in this defence effort of the profit incentive, regardless of the pressure of the emergency or whether this is termed a struggle for survival. No matter how great the emergency or the nation's need, even in building a defence effort under today's emergency conditions, without question the government is forced to give some consideration to the profit incentive. I believe it is further evidenced, Mr. Speaker, in the government's failure to interfere in what are considered the normal workings of this capitalist system by the establishment of the controls for which the members of this house have been asking in previous debates, and which would protect the living standards of the Canadian people. It is evidenced in the refusal to establish a rate of taxation that will make it impossible for anyone to gain an advantage from the nation's distress, and the refusal to make sufficient provision for the housing of many Canadians without housing today.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there are two angles to our defence production program. There is the political angle, which has significance, and the economic angle. I think there is no question about it, the minister's ability as an administrator is recognized from the 80709-54 i
Defence Production Act Atlantic to the Pacific. No one questions his ability or the great work he did for the Canadian people in the second world war. No one questions his integrity. After reading through this bill I would say our main criticism, Mr. Speaker, would be that the bill places enormous powers in the hands of the minister. When you can read in the bill a clause which indicates that the minister is equal to His Majesty the King-I never read that in a bill before-the minister is without a doubt assuming immense powers. Our criticism of the minister and his colleagues under present conditions is that they lack a social awareness and understanding of the Canadian people's hopes and aspirations. I think that is evidenced, Mr. Speaker, by the failure of the government to accept labour's challenge to establish a government, labour and management committee, and co-operate to establish a wage stabilization policy in this country.
It was further evidenced by the reason set forth by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cote) for not agreeing to a proposed amendment to legislation. He said that if he agreed to the amendment, then next year there would be a demand for another amendment. Actually, this meant he did not believe in progress. Then, Mr. Speaker, there is evidence of a lack of awareness of the attitude of the Canadian people as a whole in the continued delay on the part of the government in instituting some over-all social security system in this country. In our opinion freedom can only be defended and maintained, Mr. Speaker, by the co-operation of freedom-loving people. When we come to the question of a defence production program, not only are there economic aspects of the program but there are political aspects, and the political aspects have to do with the question of morale. Morale depends, first of all, on the faith of the people in the democratic way of life, and also in this government continuing to give effect to progressive democratic policies.
Without question, production under our defence program depends to a great extent on morale. I should like to deal with that aspect of the question because quite a number of people in Canada have been somewhat disturbed in recent days by certain newspaper reports. In the Montreal Standard of February 24, I was somewhat disturbed to read that Mr. Krupp was seeking a Montreal outlet. I should like to read briefly from this report because I want to bring it to the minister's attention. It reads:
Alfred Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, head of the vast steel and arms feeding reserve for the

Defence Production Act
German war machine, was freed from a Bavarian prison January 31 after serving six years as a war criminal.
John J. McCloy, United States high commissioner in West Germany, accompanied the release with an order for restoration of the Krupp holdings.
That is enough to make all the murdered millions turn in their graves. The article continues:
The sentence reduction and the reorganization of the Krupp firm met strong protest in Europe and elsewhere.
I am pleased to hear it. There was a strong protest from the British people.
The Krupp munitions combine became symbolic of German militarism during the century it operated from its base at Essen, in West Germany. Its growth from steel, coal and iron holdings to the inclusion of shipyard and insurance interests paralleled Germany's mounting power.
Adolph Hitler recognized the contribution of Germany's greatest armaments empire in 1943 by establishing it as a family combine for "incomparable efforts to boost Germany's military potential."
I just'want to read a further short extract from this news item:
Reliable sources said Krupp was seeking to ally itself with a Canadian company which would act as a servicing and sales channel for large-scale manufacturing projects.
A Montreal industrialist said he was negotiating with the firm's German principals to become their Canadian outlet.
I might say at this point that he ought to be damn well ashamed of himself.
W. J. Keating, onetime head of the Keating Forging and Foundry Company here, said he had been negotiating with Krupp for "several months." He said the German organization, forced into a plowshares-for-guns transition at the end of the last war, planned to concentrate on prefabricated bridges, heavy transport equipment, and possibly i newly-designed type of diesel engine.
Then there is a subheading "Arms up to Government" and the item continues:
Keating said arms manufacture also might enter into the negotiations but entry of German-made arms into Canada would require sanctions from the Canadian government. Federal officials in Ottawa declined to discuss the possibility.
The Montreal industrialist said that negotiations with Krupp were "progressing" and that he was completing plans for early construction of a Krupp-sponsored forging plant here.
Officials of the import division of the trade and commerce department at Ottawa said they had not yet been informed officially of the Krupp-Keating talks. Other sources, in the external affairs department, pointed out that the wartime-trading-with-enemy regulations had gone out of existence.
I just want to make one or two observations on that, Mr. Speaker. We all know the history of the Krupp armament works in Germany and of their contribution to the first world war. We know that the Krupps were key figures in the Hitler regime. They were tried before prominent jurists in the war criminal trials and were proven guilty on a


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. I wonder how the hon. member relates what he is saying to the discussion of the principle of this bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Quite well, I think, Mr. Speaker. I relate my remarks to the bill because I believe that any truck or trade with a nazi or with people of this type will affect the morale of the people of this country, will undermine their confidence in our democratic principles, and in that way reduce and affect the defence production effort.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that there is no intention in this bill to have truck or trade with the nazis. I think my hon. friend is out of order in discussing the subject upon which he has just entered.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I had practically concluded my remarks in that connection, and I am delighted to hear the minister make the statement he has just made. I am sure that the minister's statement will be much appreciated by a good many people in this country. I now proceed with my argument.

In the House of Commons on February 1 of this year the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said, as reported at page 27 of Hansard:
What we shall be asking parliament to authorize will not be aid or assistance to anybody else. It will be something required by ourselves for the purpose of doing our part in building up this joint strength which is required to fulfil an undertaking that no one of us alone could fulfil and one that can be fulfilled only by the full co-operative efforts of all of us.
Then quoting from the Ottawa Citizen of March 1, under the heading "Inflation to cut Standards", I note that, when the Prime Minister was speaking at the annual banquet of the advisory council of the national Liberal federation, he is reported as saying:
. . . inflation and Canada's defence program are going to bring about "some reduction" in Canadian consumption of goods and in living standards.
To date in the debate on the minister's announcement with regard to our defence program, in the debate on the emergency bill, and in the debate on this bill, ministers and others have emphasized the fact that this is a national emergency and a struggle for survival. We are told by the Prime Minister that we must face a reduction of the living standards of the Canadian people. I just want to bring to the attention of the house how certain corporations face this situation at this time. I want to quote, from a few reports and from a few newspaper items that I think are quite reliable, the opinion of certain companies regarding the prospects for the reduction of profits in the year ahead. First of all I will mention the annual report of Massey-Harris Company Limited, 1950, which states:
As long as the present state of international tension continues to exist, the demand for farm implements will, in all probability, be strongly sustained.
The Financial Post of February 24, 1951, page 39, has a headline:
Rouyn looks for record year in 1951-growing production levels, higher prices, outlook bright.
From the Financial Post, January 27, 1951, page 9, I shall give excerpts from "Special analysis by the Post" of movements on the Toronto stock exchange, January 1 to December 31, 1950, in industrials, mines and oils:
International Nickel:	World shortage of nickel
became increasingly evident toward the end of the year. As the extent of United States military program became known, heavy buying came into this stock. Third quarter earnings were up sharply reflecting higher nickel and copper prices. Earnings are expected to rise farther still as larger tonnage operations are reached.
De Haviland "A": An upward trend in earnings, possibility of war earnings growing out of current military preparedness program and a small floating
Defence Production Act supply of stock combined to give this issue the biggest year's advance among industrial stock groups.
From the Financial Post, January 27, 1951, page 17:
Atlas Steel Limited has declared an interim dividend of twenty-five cents a share payable February 1, 1951, to shareholders of record January 3. No statement was made regarding the possibility of future dividends. This is the first dividend to be declared since twenty-five cents a share was declared payable on August 1, 1949.
The fact that the company has declared this dividend is taken as an indication that its upward trend in earnings is continued . . . Demand for all types of steel is very strong at present which augurs well for the company.
From the Financial Post of February 3, 1951, page 13, excerpt from an article headed "Stock Market Boom":
Since Korea (June, 1950) Canadian industrial stocks'-as measured by the Toronto stock exchange industrial index-jumped 33 per cent in average value. Base metals have done even better with a 52 per cent spurt. The very active pulp and paper group, as measured by the Montreal stock exchange average, has moved up 44-5 per cent. Both gold and western oils have trailed the field.
The next quotation is from the Financial Post of February 10, 1951, page 29, and reads as follows:
Excerpt from article:
"Big and small new industries dot Quebec."
Increasing defence needs are making Quebec's expanding industry more important than ever in Canada's over-all industrial defence picture. Although the flow of defence orders has not really started to gush yet, the impact of those already placed has been felt in several areas of the province.
I have one more, Mr. Speaker, which is from the Financial Post of February 24, 1951, page 4, and is an excerpt from a report of Eastern Steel Products Limited. It reads as follows:
A large demand for the company's products exists, and provided materials are available, in reasonable quantities, 1951 should prove a much more satisfactory year.
There is the general attitude of these companies. In reading the reports we find that many of the statements mentioned the fact that net earnings are expected to be considerable, although many of these companies expect higher taxation this year. But, Mr. Speaker, the honey of them all is our old friend the International Nickel Company. I hold in my hand the Trainman News. It is a United States paper, published, I presume, by the trainmen's organization. I find in it the following heading: "Nickel Monopolists ignore United States Defence Needs. Wall Street-infested parent corporation hides its tail in Canada." I want to quote two or three paragraphs from this article, because it deals with a report of the United1 States committee

Defence Production Act that had to do with armed services preparedness. This is what is stated in the article: The recently adopted order limiting the use of nickel for civilian purposes is official acknowledgment of the growing scarcity of this vital metal. Why is there such a scarcity?
The shortage of nickel is the direct result of the monopolistic policies of the International Nickel Company, Limited, an American-Canadian-owned company that produces more than 85 per cent of the world's nickel outside Russia. This combination owns the largest nickel ore body in the world in the Sudbury basin of Ontario, and has been called by a United States Senate committee "one of the most formidable monopolies."
The Senate armed services preparedness subcommittee reported these facts in December when its chairman, Senator Lyndon Johnson, expressed grave concern over the foreseeable severe shortage of nickel. The Johnson committee said:
"The large increase in the production of these industries (machine tools, atomic equipment, jet aircraft engines and other armaments), which have now become basic to our survival as a free nation, depends substantially on a similar increase in nickel production."
"Yet, behind this front of being a foreign corporation, these Americans choose to ignore the country's desperate need for nickel for defence, and refuse to expand production."
The Senate committee points out that:
In the light of the allegations made in the complaint . . . the consent decree did almost nothing to affect the basic monopoly Inco enjoys over the sale of nickel and nickel products in the United States.
The foundation of the International Nickel Company's monopoly is the exclusive ownership of the largest known nickel ore body in the world, located in Ontario, Canada. Apparently because the company is Canadian the United States department of justice felt compelled to accept a settlement on terms giving far less relief than requested.
The Johnson committee declared that Inco is so typically an unregulated monopoly that it could serve well as a case study. I continue with the quotation:
The company gives no indication that it intends to change its position. Its past behaviour, as the Johnson Senate committee points out, is typical of unregulated monopoly. In the present emergency it can be expected to stand pat lest increased capacity and output result in a situation in normal times that will interfere with the low output, high price and profit policies which it has enforced since the end of world war I.
This article deals at great length with this situation. I want to mention here that while the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) says we face a struggle for survival, we face a great national emergency, this great monopoly, according to a committee of the United States senate, refuses to expand production to meet the emergency.
Further the article states a recommendation was made by that committee that the matter be taken up with the Canadian government to see if it could do anything to get the International Nickel Company to expand production. When the minister speaks I should like to hear him tell the house whether any representations have been received from the [Mr. Herridge.l

United States government and what action has been taken to get the International Nickel to co-operate with our defence production effort.	.
We cannot defend freedom, Mr. Speaker, and continue to chant the litanies of the countinghouse, or approach the struggle for survival in the spirit of the money changers. While these companies from their balance sheets and from the statements of their officers and as a result of an investigation by one senate committee in the United States with respect to International Nickel indicate that they expect higher profits, while living standards fall, the Canadian people are told by the Prime Minister that they must accept a lower standard of living. In my opinion the Canadian people will accept the sacrifice that is necessary to defend freedom provided that sacrifice is on the basis of equality. That has been the attitude of this group throughout the years. Its attitude has been that in any national emergency the national effort in all its phases should be on the basis of equality of sacrifice. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge upon this government a political understanding and approach that will reflect the public understanding of the principles of democracy, and their opposition to any association with war criminals and people of that ilk.
I further suggest with respect to the economic aspects of this program that the government still do something to equalize the burden of the defence effort program by the reinstatement of price controls and subsidies that the Canadian people have been urging by rationing of goods in short supply when that is necessary; by a policy that will provide houses for thousands of Canadians in the lower income groups who need them badly now; and by establishing a rate of taxation when the budget is brought down that will prevent all profiteering and make our defence effort a real co-operative effort; also by the decentralization of industry and by the use of production potential of the smaller industrialists in this country.
In my plea for equal treatment of the Canadian people, and the placing of the burden with some degree of equality, I am reminded of a quotation from Burke. It is strange that I have to return to a former Conservative to finish my argument. The quotation is as follows:
Justice is itself the standing policy of civil society, and any departure from it under any circumstances lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
If our defence production program is not based on the principle of equality of sacrifice it will be no policy at all so far as effects are concerned. Throughout the years this group has defended the principle of equality

of sacrifice in every field in a national emergency, and will continue to do so. To demonstrate its faith in democracy and the principles of justice this government's program must at least demand equality of sacrifice.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: I want only two or three minutes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Before any other hon. member speaks, perhaps I should remind the house that what we are discussing now is not the defence production program but a bill setting up a department.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I wish to take only two or three minutes at this time, in the hope that the minister will clear up one matter which is disturbing me.
In principle the bill before us asks for very wide and comprehensive powers to set up a Department of Defence Production. I am inclined to think such a department is needed, and I shall vote for it. I think it is apparent that such a department is needed when we look at some of the defence production figures which have been given to us in recent weeks.
The Korean war has been going on for about nine months. Thus far, apparently, Canadian rearming is progressing at a very slow rate. In the house on February 5, the Minister of National Defence put on Hansard figures that I cannot reconcile. He said this:
In the first nine months of the present fiscal year, which ended on December 31, 1950, 80,000 orders were actually placed with industry.
I suppose those orders were placed by the Department of Trade and Commerce. The minister then continued:
During this period orders have been placed with trade and commerce for the sum of $701 million.
The main items are:
Aircraft, $331 million; ships, $96 million: radar and wireless, $50 million; clothing and textiles, $35 million; motor vehicles, $50 million.
On February 26, about three weeks later, a reply was tabled to a question I had asked about motor production. My question was:
1.	Since June, 1950, have any defence contracts been placed with (a) Ford Motor Company; (b) General Motors; (c) Chrysler Motor Corporation; (d) Studebaker of Canada?
2.	If so, what was the dollar value of contracts placed with each company?
The answer I received stated that defence orders of less than $2,500,000 had been placed with the motor industry-in other words less than five per cent of the figure the minister had given two weeks earlier. Are we to assume from these figures that our defence program so far is still a program on paper only? Many Canadians fear that such is the
Defence Production Act case. If only five per cent of motor contracts reported have been actually placed, is the same true of ships, is the same true of radar, is the same true of aircraft?
I suppose that the department to be set up by this measure will ensure that defence contracts are placed more rapidly. However, before we go further, I believe the minister should tell us the present position of our defence production-the proportion which is on paper only, and the proportion which has actually been given out to industry. The figures to which I have referred are startling, and I cannot reconcile them.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, already the point of view of our party has been stated by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I should like to go over some of the ground he has covered, most certainly not for the purpose of in any way seeking to explain his extremely clear and excellent analysis of the bill, but rather so that I may keep the remarks I wish to make in consecutive order in relation to the bill itself.
As the hon. member told the house, a distinction must be drawn between the principle of any bill and the details of that bill which can be discussed in committee, and at which time amendments can be proposed. The principle of the bill was set forth in the statement made earlier this afternoon by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). He said correctly that the effect of the bill, if it became law, would be to produce three important results. One would be that it would establish the Department of Defence Production, another that it would confer powers on the minister to carry out the duties of that department, and the third that it would confer on the minister and the government authority to control and direct supplies as well as to take the appropriate steps to assure the production of defence requirements.
It seems to me the principle we have under consideration in the debate on second reading is whether or not in the opinion of the house there should be a department of defence production, and whether that department should have the appropriate powers to carry out its duties. Naturally the existence of any department calls for the appointment of a minister and for the setting up of the necessary staff to operate the department, which is in fact covered by the bill.
In so far as the bill sets up a department of defence production and gives proper authority to carry out the appropriate duties of that department, I feel sure there is approval throughout the whole of the house.

Defence Production Act I would say that there is more than approval, that there is a feeling of great urgency, and that as has already been pointed out by one hon. member the time is long overdue for the production of certain defence requirements which the country was promised long ago.
Let me give one example of the reason for concern that should be in the minds of all hon. members. This subject has been referred to before, but I believe there should be reference to it again in relation to the purpose of the bill, because it is so closely associated with the reasons why steps should be taken to set up a department of this kind. It was two years ago this Easter that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) made the important announcement that the Canadian government had decided to adopt the .300 calibre weapons of the United States, and to produce machine guns and rifles of the .300 calibre, which is the standard of the United States army, as well as to adopt as our standard certain equipment used by the forces of that country, so that there could be a closer integration of our activities.
It was certainly a cause for very real concern by every Canadian who had been reassured by that statement that something was going to be done-whether they agreed with the decision to adopt the American calibre or not-when we learned that publicly-owned arsenals in this country capable of producing very large quantities of machine guns and rifles had been making sporting weapons, while we had been selling our .303 calibre weapons to countries in different parts of the world, including the agents of communist China.
I do not see how it is possible to have any feeling but the feeling that there is something approaching criminal neglect when we see that, in the face of these emergencies which are so constantly impressed upon us by the government, it fails to use the productive capacity already owned by the state to produce the weapons we need so badly, and which are needed not only by the active force but also by the reserve force, about which during the present session there has already been discussion in the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would my hon. friend mind an interruption?


George Alexander Drew: Not at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say to him that no standard specification for rifles has yet been adopted by the United Nations. Great Britain and the United States have not been able to agree on the calibre of the weapon or on the type of ammunition. Canada wished to tool up for rifles, although we have a good


stock of the British type and there are plenty of the United States type available from United States sources, but we naturally were reluctant to tool up for a weapon that did not represent a standard recognized by the United Nations. A committee has just recently been appointed, and its first task will be to decide the question of what will be the standard weapon for the United Nations.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think that statement is a very important one in relation to the work that is to be done by this department. I think it is important that there be some explanation to the house by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) of why he announced publicly two years ago that the decision had been made to adopt the United States calibre when we are now told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that no decision has yet been made. This is the very sort of thing that indicates a disregard for the rights of parliament as well as the democratic rights of the people of Canada when no one knows exactly what the facts really are, no matter what statements may be made by supposedly responsible members of the government.
I feel sure that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is stating the facts in this case. I say that, not because I would accept without reservation many of the statements he makes, but in this case I do accept his statement for the simple reason that at the very time he is about to take over his department I am certain he would not wish to create the impression that production has not yet commenced if in fact that decision had already been made. But since the Minister of Trade and Commerce has now made this statement, may I suggest that perhaps there is no decision of more importance awaiting consideration by those who are associated in the Atlantic treaty. I think the minister meant the Atlantic treaty.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thank you for straightening me out. I did not mean the United Nations.


George Alexander Drew: I realized that. That would have been a difficult problem. We might have had difficulty in getting agreement with the Russians. I realized that the Minister of Trade and Commerce meant the Atlantic powers. It is a very easy slip to make because actually it seems at the moment that the most effective segment of the activities with regard to the European aspect of this problem is related to what is being done under the Atlantic pact. I would point out that it is of immense importance that this decision be made. After all, there are so many members on both sides of the house who know that it is

important for men to become accustomed to the weapon they will be using if they are to be effectively trained as units of any defence force. 1 would hope that this decision will not be long delayed. I know that it has been under consideration for some time and that a decision may not be easy to make, but certainly it is a decision that is very urgently required. We are told now for the first time that no decision was made, and I hope at the first opportunity the Minister of National Defence will explain what he meant when he made the statement which was reported two years ago.
Because we believe that there should be a Department of Defence Production with the appropriate agencies to carry it into effect we will support the principle of the bill on second reading. For reasons which have already been very carefully put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), that does not imply acceptance of the details of the bill or of many of the provisions which we regard as entirely out of keeping at this time with the arguments put forward by the government with respect to other measures under consideration, and entirely out of keeping with the attempt that is being made to create the impression in the house that we should not act as though we were yet fully engaged in something of the nature of a general war.
We have indicated our own belief that emphasis should be placed on the fact that the preparations taking place are preparations which we hope will result in peace. We believe, however, that everything should proceed as rapidly as possible but under proper supervision of parliament. In presenting the criticisms which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra directed to certain sections of the bill, he made it clear he was hoping that by bringing these criticisms forward in detail at this time the government might consider the advisability of amending many of these sections before we are called upon to deal with the bill in committee, and that the government would voluntarily come before the house and present a bill which in fact retains the responsibility of parliament over the things that are to be done by this defence production board.
Every effort has been made by the government to create the impression that we must not proceed as though we were in a state of war, and with that I agree. The achievement of peace should be the goal towards which anything that we do is directed, but this act is drafted as though we were already in a more terrible war than that in which we became involved in September, 1939. In some respects this act confers more arbitrary
Defence Production Act powers than did the legislation which this government saw fit to introduce during the most terrible war that has been known in all the history of the world. I think it is essential that, in considering the extent to which the bill now goes and why we urge in all earnestness that the government redraft the bill with recognition that we should continue the authority of parliament during a period of an emergency which may extend for long years, we should recognize the arguments that have been put before the people of Canada outside the house by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his associates. For that reason I should like to quote the exact words of the Prime Minister from a speech outside the house, it is true, but here in the city of Ottawa the day before yesterday. I shall quote from the exact text of his speech. At one point he said:
Nothing is easier than to assume that because there is some resemblance between the circumstances of today and the circumstances of eleven or twelve years ago the same course of action is called for.
We must not forget that we are not trying to win the second world war today. Today we are trying to prevent a third world war. That too is going to require a tremendous effort. But it is going to be different in many ways from what we were doing ten or eleven years ago. Some of the things we did then do have to be done again. But other things called for to win a shooting war are completely unsuited to the task of preventing a shooting war.
There the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was seeking to emphasize the fact that we should not now be called upon in parliament to confer upon the government emergency measures with as wide authority as some of those that were regarded as necessary in that war which began more than ten years ago. Then at a later point in the same speech he had something else to say which I think is worth reading into the record at this point because this speech obviously was intended as a statement to the people of Canada in relation to a subject under consideration in this house. Later on the Prime Minister said:
The most serious domestic problem we face is inflation. That was a serious problem ten years ago and it is a serious problem today. I suppose the consequence of inflation which creates the greatest anxiety for most men and women- especially with families-is the rising cost of living. And the increase in the cost of living is a very real anxiety to the government, too.
Almost ten years ago, the government of the day undertook to keep down the cost of living while the war was on by establishing price ceilings. Our wartime price control policy was an outstanding success. For that very reason it is hard for many people to understand why we are not able to do in 1951 what worked so well after 1941. And you may be sure we would adopt the same policy now if we believed it would really work. But would it? It is true prices were rising in 1941
850	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act
and they are rising in 1951; but many other conditions in 1951 are very different from those we faced in 1941.
In 1941 the war was on. Our aim was to devote the maximum effort of our people to winning it as quickly as possible. To do that we were cutting out all non-essential activities and distributing the essentials as evenly as possible.
In 1951 we are not in the throes of a shooting war. Our aim today is to build up sufficient military strength to prevent war, and to do it as quickly as we can. But we are not engaged in the kind of total effort which people look upon as appropriate only to an actual shooting war.
May I emphasize those last words. I have read this extended quotation into the record because it indicates the attitude of the government, and we regard that attitude as not facing the full realities in many respects. The government refuse to do some of these other things because they say we should not go so far today; yet when the bill is brought down dealing with the whole economy of Canada, no matter what the purpose may be we find that it actually goes further than did the legislation introduced by this' same government during the course of that most terrible war which ended in 1945.
In the consideration of the emergency powers legislation the Prime Minister sought over and over again to impress upon the house that he would not wish to ask for powers of the type required in actual war. Why, then, does this bill ask for greater powers than were asked by this government in an actual all-out war such a short time ago? I think perhaps the answer to that is to be found in the words of the minister this afternoon, and I quote his exact words: "I have supervised the drafting of this bill." In describing the bill, the minister frankly stated that it contained powers of an extraordinary nature; but, as has been pointed out, there was no explanation as to why those extraordinary powers are required at this time to do the things we all agree should be done, and very quickly. The obvious fact is that the minister sees no reason to explain. The government has a huge majority. The minister decides that this should be done; he obtains the consent of the government, and he knows that the vote will support what is before this house. Consequently the rest of us, and I suppose the members of his party as well, have no need to be told why action of this kind should be taken at this time. Surely in the light of what is before us there can be no other explanation of the fact that powers so wide as these should be required.
It seems to me that for this reason every member of this house should seek to understand what actually is the full effect of this legislation. This bill certainly confers powers which go further than powers parliament should confer upon any government or any 

minister without a great deal more explanation than we have had so far. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) has referred to one extraordinary section relating to these extraordinary powers. That is section 5, which reads:
The minister may authorize any person, on his behalf and under his control and direction, to do any act or thing or to exercise any power that the minister may do or exercise under this act.
It is in relation to this section that we should read1 the powers the minister really has. As he indicated, the minister has power to create crown corporations for the purpose of carrying out the objects of this legislation. That is covered- by section 7, and in subsection 3 of that section we find this-:
The minister may remove any members, directors, or officers- of a corporation incorporated under this section at any time and may appoint others in their stead or may appoint additional persons as members.
Referring back to section 5, therefore, we find that this is not something to be done by order in council, but that corporations with immense capital, and of great importance to all Canada, may have their officers removed and other officers appointed, not by the minister, although he is named, but by any Tom, Dick or Harry authorized by the minister, utterly unknown to this house. So we are conferring upon the minister not only the power to do these extraordinary things, in many cases without the approval of the government itself; we are still further asked to let him name anyone and give him authority to exercise these tremendous powers which may so greatly affect the future of Canada. Then again we find in section 11 that it is not the government by order in council but the minister who-
-shall examine Into, organize, mobilize, and conserve the resources of Canada contributory to, and the sources of supply of, defence supplies and the agencies and facilities available for the supply of the same. . .
Then it goes on to explain that this power shall extend to construction projects and the exploration of all the possibilities in that field. There again, it is not the government upon whom we are conferring a power, nor the minister alone, but someone unknown to the government, unknown to parliament, who may be appointed by the minister at any time to undertake this task. This same extension of power goes right on through the act.
Section 23, which is a section of immense power, provides the following, and I think in the text of what I am saying I shall read this section. It reads:
(1) Where a person who has been requested to enter into a defence contract on terms and conditions that the minister considers to be fair and reasonable has refused or failed to enter into the

contract, if the minister is satisfied that such person owns or controls facilities that are suitable for or can be adapted to the work required to carry out such contract and that his refusal or failure was without reasonable excuse, the minister may direct that person to produce, deliver or store, or to construct, as the case may be, on such terms and conditions and within such period as the minister considers to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances, the defence supplies or the defence project or projects that would have been the subject matter of the contract if it had been entered into.
(2) A person who stores defence supplies pursuant to a direction under this section is liable for the loss thereof or for damage thereto as if he had agreed to store them for reward.
Think of the powers conferred under that section, and then recognize that under section 5 we are asked to authorize the minister to place powers of that kind under no restraint of government, let alone parliament, in the hands of anyone who may be appointed by the minister at any time on his own discretion.
Then, section 28 is another section of great importance. Again, so that my remarks carry through the effect of this bill in sequence so far as the powers of the minister being delegated are concerned, I shall read section 28. It reads:
(1)	The minister may, by order, direct that a person shall not be bound-
I should like those members who are still interested in the responsibility of parliament, and in the authority of provincial legislatures as well as municipal councils, to listen to the effect of these words:

by any obligation, restriction or limitation imposed on that person by or under any statute, order, rule, regulation, by-law, or contract with respect to such matters as may be specified in the order affecting the entry into or performance of a defence contract by that person or the carrying out of an order made by the minister under this act.
(2)	Where the failure to fulfil any contract, whether entered into before or after the commencement of this act, is due to the compliance on the part of any person with any provision of this act or any order or regulation, proof of that fact shall be a good defence to any action or proceeding in respect of the failure.
There is no necessity, Mr. Speaker, to try to extend the interpretation of this to any particular limit. It is only necessary to see what this actually means. This is not power by order in council, dangerous though that may be, but this means that under section 5 any person without legal training, without business training, without knowledge of the subject matter at all, if he happened to be appointed by the minister would have a power which would be greater than that of the legislatures of this country during the life of this act. This power conferred by section 28 would give that power to any individual, without the cabinet even knowing it, to override any dominion statute, provincial statute, any municipal bylaw or regulation or order made under them which affected any
Defence Production Act contract, or the subject matter relating to one of these defence contracts. It is not possible to conceive of a greater defiance of the responsibility of parliament than section 28.
Then, let us go to the next section, section 29.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order.
I waited as long as I could, and I am sorry to interrupt the leader of the opposition. He has quoted several sections in the bill, and I should like to refer to citation 656 of Beau-chesne's third edition. It reads:
The second reading of a bill is that stage when it is proper to enter into a discussion and propose a motion relative to the principle of the measure. On the motion for the second reading, it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the bill.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, if objection is to be taken to discussing these extremely offensive sections of this bill in the hope that the government might seek to amend the bill in a way that would restore some of the responsibility of parliament, then obviously I cannot proceed in detail to urge that the government give some consideration to a restoration of parliamentary democracy in keeping with the statement made in this house and outside by the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, I am not in any way precluded from saying that the effect of the immediately succeeding sections is to give powers, again under the authority of the minister, making it possible to conduct investigations of a nature that I am sure were never contemplated by any legislation previously placed before this house.
So that there may be no question about the sections, I leave it to the members to examine them in detail. I shall say that this bill carries forward the extraordinary provisions of an act which was passed by this house last September, an act which will be repealed by this bill if it is passed in its present form. It is the Essential Materials (Defence) Act which is to be repealed by one of the sections of this act. The provisions of that act, which are fully embraced and rewritten into this act, give wider powers to this government than have ever been conferred on any government in Canada in peace or war. Fortunately for the people of Canada in one respect, the government was apparently reluctant to exercise its declared authority under that act which we contended last September was not constitutional. My own opinion stated then was that it was ultra vires. I believe the government has done so little under it because they also became convinced that it was ultra vires. They are now carrying those powers forward into a wider emergency bill, and I feel sure they hope to maintain the authority of this
852	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act bill by the fact that, under the Emergency Powers Act, this house would be called upon to declare an emergency.
This act is one which goes so far that it makes it possible for the government, without specific authority of parliament, to declare any service an essential service. If the members will carefully read the sections which it has been suggested I should not read into the record, they will find that the authority conferred is so great that a general order could be made declaring any service right across Canada an essential service which would come under the control of the dominion government, no matter how exclusively it at all times in the past had been within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial governments of this country.
Again I hope that, when I point out some of these things, it will not be argued that I am opposing the setting up of a department of defence production. That is the easiest and most specious defence for utterly undemocratic procedure which takes place in this house. Every time that an attempt is made to point out the dangers of legislation that is introduced, the question is raised as to whether we want action at this time. We want action, but we want action that retains the authority of parliament and that retains that core of democracy for which this parliament must speak if democracy is to survive in Canada during the critical years ahead.
I know that there are different views about extending these wide-open powers. There are those members of the house who have a comfortable feeling of confidence that, no matter how great are the powers, those powers would never be exercised to the detriment of the people of Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: When I hear the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Garson) saying "hear, hear," I realize how far we have gone along the road to abandoning all responsibility of parliament itself, if he has his way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: After all, the Minister of
Justice is the minister who has sworn to defend the laws of this country; and the Minister of Justice is the minister who has sworn to interpret our laws. His department is called upon to advise us in regard to laws. I must admit, of course, that there may be some measure of comfort in the mind of the minister that on this occasion he is able to agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) instead of having to submit. But, nevertheless, I suggest that there is a strong reason why the members of


this house should be concerned about that interjection of the Minister of Justice; because although we were told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this bill was drafted under his direction, we now have the apparent assurance of the Minister of Justice that it is with his approval as well.
These wide powers go beyond anything contemplated in this house before. If hon. members will read one section, they will find that under this bill, if it becomes law, the government by order in council may actually declare as an essential service the production of electricity. Let me deal with this matter merely by way of illustration. If the government decided that the production of electricity was an essential service, they could then pass an order declaring the production of electricity right across Canada an essential service. Under that order they could appoint controllers, and take over the operation of the electrical services in every one of the ten provinces, whether publicly owned or privately owned. It is not a question of whether the minister is likely to do that. It is what the government could do. Of course, even though there may be some of the members that have such unlimited confidence in the omniscience and the wisdom of the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: If the situation were not so
serious, Mr. Speaker, one might really laugh with those members who have this astonishing attitude toward powers of that kind. It would seem to me that at least one reporter of a weekly publication in this country must have been infected with that particular disease which, along with the influenza, seems to be epidemic in this house at the moment. I saw it in only one place, but in a weekly publication called Time, under the date of February 12 last, there is a heading: "Canada" which appears of course in the Canadian edition. Under that heading there is a paragraph headed: "All In Favor." Alongside it there is a picture of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Warren:: Good looking.


George Alexander Drew: There is one thing about the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He certainly does not lack for a vocal claque in this house, at any rate.


Mr. Winters:: Genuine support.


George Alexander Drew: I am not being in any way offensive to the hon. member; I do not mean the word "clack"; I mean the word "claque". Under the heading of "All in Favor", which appears beside the picture of the Minister

of Trade and Commerce, we find this extremely interesting and wholly imaginative paragraph:
One move made by the Canadian government last week won unanimous approval from all the major parties. Tories and C.C.F. joined the Liberals in applauding the appointment of Clarence Decatur Howe, 65,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Melville Warren: That was a good idea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Except that it has not been done yet. The article continues:
-as head of the newly-created department of defence production. "A first-rate administrator," said Tory leader George Drew. "He was the one man the government had for it," echoed a C.C.F.'er.
May 1 point out that, in the first place, the department of defence production has not yet been created. The minister has not yet been appointed. I never made any such statement in relation to this act, and I have never thought of making it because I am satisfied that the last minister to administer this act, with terms of that kind, is the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is one thing about it. Nobody cares much what you think. Do not take yourself too seriously.


George Alexander Drew: No. I am not taking myself as seriously as the Minister of Trade and Commerce takes himself; he obviously thinks that he is the only minister who can do anything in this government, and he shows that to every member of the government on every occasion when they cross his will. I am certainly not taking myself as seriously as is the Pooh-Bah of this government who seeks to control every department.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Who is winning the next election for us?


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Justice, sworn to observe the laws of parliament and the principles of parliament, can never get past petty politics at any time and never will.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Where are we right now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. Perhaps we should come back to discussion of the principle of this bill. May I remind hon. members that although they may converse in this house, they must do so in whispers.


George Alexander Drew: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you directed the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the rules of the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. I must point out to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that I was not doing just that.
Defence Production Act I was reminding all hon. members that the rules must be followed.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to let the Hansard record stand and to have that Hansard record decide as to whether at any point I have failed to observe the rules of the house in the discussion that has just taken place.
I do wish to point out that this imaginative article is one which apparently represents an attitude that is prevalent in this house today. One hon. member on the opposite side of the house, for whom I have the very highest regard, on one occasion said: "It is perfectly true that this confers great powers on the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I have great faith in the Minister of Trade and Commerce." But, Mr. Speaker, The Minister of Trade and Commerce is not only taking the powers under the act, whose draftsmanship he directed, according to his own statement, but he is seeking authority to appoint any number of petty dictators all over the country, who are able to say to anyone: It does not make any difference what any provincial legislature may pass as an act of that legislature; it does not make any difference what a municipal council may pass as a by-law, or what administrative orders or otherwise may be passed under them, you do not need to observe them, they may conflict with what we want done under this act. And yet the person who makes that decision may not have had the practical legal experience that sometimes goes with activities other than the law itself, and may certainly not have practised law. Nevertheless he can interpret the law and say whether these acts are in conflict or not. That is what hon. members are being asked to pass.


Ralph Melville Warren: That is imaginary.


George Alexander Drew: I wish I could hear what the
hon. member said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I do wish I could hear. It
might be possible to deal with the comment if one could hear what was being said.


Ralph Melville Warren: I said, "That is imaginary".


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this house is not
only being asked to pass legislation which would make it possible for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, by an order in council which had supported his expressed opinion, to appoint controllers who could go in and take over the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, the newly created power authorities in Quebec, or the power authorities in British Columbia or in any other part of Canada. But under this legislation, and I hope hon. members will realize it, no matter
854	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act what confidence they may have in this particular minister, misplaced though it may be, they will have the power to appoint controllers who could go in and take over the complete control of all the gas and oil production in Alberta. They could declare that the production of iron is an essential service, and that iron ore is an essential material. They could appoint controllers to go in and take over the operation of any of those great operations today.
It is not enough to say, Mr. Speaker, that a particular minister would not do these things. The duty of members of parliament is to say whether any minister or any government should have that power.
Under this legislation this government is setting up for a period of five years the full mechanism of dictatorship-nothing less. Under this legislation this government is seeking, for a period of five years, the power to deal not only with the material economy of this country but with the services offered by every Canadian. That is the effect of it. There is not a work, there is no one engaged in any activity, whether it be in the city, on the farms, or in the forests, who does not come under the effect of this act.
The very attitude that was displayed at the time when this was being examined in a very objective and detached way by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) indicates what complete disregard there is by this government of the suggestions that are made that parliament should retain its authority during this period of extended emergency, which we are told is not the kind of emergency which should call for full wartime powers.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, will go forward in committee. Whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce drafted the bill or not, the Minister of Justice is the minister responsible for legislation introduced by the government; and even at the dreadful risk of being once again in disagreement with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I do urge him to accept his responsibility as Minister of Justice of a democratic parliament, and to redraft this bill before we go into committee so that we shall still have responsible government in Canada and so that hon. members of this house and of the parliament of Canada shall retain some control over the destiny of our country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have only a few words-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
for Greenwood.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is this a Tory monopoly?


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: 1
apologize to the minister for taking his applause. I should like to make a few observations on this bill. In the first place, I should like to say what I think we all feel, namely, that defence production must not be delayed. We must give it whatever powers are necessary for that, and second-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are the first one who ever admitted that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, I hope not, and I think not. Second, we must not allow private interest to stand in the way of defence measures. I believe that. I may not come to the same conclusions as hon. gentlemen on my left as to what that statement means, but I certainly believe it.
On the other hand, I think it is fair to remind the minister-I really am hoping that I may persuade the minister to make some concessions, though I have not had much success in the past. But the minister told us that he has had a holiday, though it was a short one, I admit, and I hope he has softened up. At any rate, I am not going to despair until I have to. I think it is fair to remind the minister and the house that having said what I have said-and I mean it all-there is a very great difference between wartime and peacetime, even the funny kind of peacetime we are having now.
In war I submit that we give extraordinary powers for two reasons, first of all, because it is war and we are in danger. We are ready to do almost anything for security. But there is another and very important reason, namely, because there is a natural time for the powers to end. We give the powers with the feeling that they are temporary, and that the time will come when everyone will agree that they should end. I submit that today the situation is radically different from that. We have been told again and again by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton)-well, by almost everyone who has spoken about it-that we must face this situation as a situation that may go on for a very long time. And yet-and I submit this with the hope that members on the government side of the house will consider it carefully-what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) says is true, that we are asked here to give these extraordinary powers. The minister himself said earlier this afternoon that they are extraordinary powers. Therefore I think it is the duty of every one of us, having had that mentioned, to ask whether all these extraordinary powers are necessary.

The leader of the opposition has referred particularly to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I wish to point out that in this chamber last night the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Justice seemed to me to set a very fine example in trying to meet a situation so that the judgment of the house would be carried. They did not just say, "We have drafted this bill, and we will not change a word of it". There was what I think the whole country would approve, a- real measure of trying to find a solution which if possible would be satisfactory to all.
Now, it is not a figure of speech-and I hope that even the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will not push it aside, as he so often has pushed aside what I have said before, as theory-it is not a figure of speech to say that if this goes on long enough and that if these powers, these extraordinary and amazing powers-and I confess I had not realized the full extent of them, and did not realize the extent to which provincial and municipal jurisdiction has been swept aside, or potentially so, until I listened to my leader-I think it is not any exaggeration to say that if these amazing powers go on for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) says, we will have a generation of businessmen who do not know what freedom is. Because if you take the terms of the bill, take the definition section and read the extent of it, I say there is practically no business in this country, no activity in this country, which could not be brought under the terms of it. I first thought, perhaps, that cosmetics would not be included, but I see that they could, because women are in the air force; and really there is virtually nothing left out.
Therefore I say that whether we like it or not-and I say this to the minister with all respect, hoping that he will not consider it in any sense an attempt on my part to exaggerate-we are going to have an economy which exists by the grace and favour of one man. That is hardly an exaggeration. No doubt the minister, when he rises, will attempt to correct me by saying that he is going to do only such-and-such things and will not use all these powers. But I am going to discuss the principle of the reserve powers, the powers held in reserve-although I think that is very questionable practice. But I do submit-and I make the statement in all sincerity-that with the power that is proposed to be given to the minister we have an economy which exists by the grace and favour of one man.
I think that that is a bad thing in more ways than one. First, I think it gives utterly
Defence Production Act unnecessary powers to one man; secondly, I think it has a bad influence on other people. You can go through the business community and find out what it means. Let me be candid: when they express their opinions about the minister they will say he is a good man to do business with. But, nevertheless, you have this situation-and I am not going to say what it means from a party point of view; I will not take the time to go over that again, but of course the possibilities there just stagger the imagination; and I am not suggesting anything sinister or anything improper-I am just saying that when you have a good, keen, alert, forceful and aggressive politician with all these powers-well, really, if I could have only ten per cent of them I would feel that we were on the way to victory in our party.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What does my hon. friend
know about politicians?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the
minister in his heart agrees with me. I am sure that, like the rest of us, he would agree with that. I am sure that the minister, away in the back of his mind, has the feeling, however sincerely he may feel as to the necessity for the exercise of these powers and the holding of these powers, that they are a very good thing for the people of Canada- I am sure he is satisfied of that. Nevertheless I am also sure that in the back of his mind he has said to himself, "It will not be a bad thing for the party, either."
I should like to refer to a gentleman who has been quoted quite freely in the house within the last two or three days. I think highly of him, because he is a friend of mine, and, secondly, because of his connection with Queen's university, and thirdly, because I believe he may be-and I say this advisedly- one of the liberals with a small "1" still extant. I am relying a bit upon that-but less than I used to do, because I find occasionally that people will say, as Professor Corry said the other day, that this long extension of powers is very dangerous. But they usually wind up by saying, "I am a Liberal," because I have to admit, with regret, that a good many of the so-called intellectuals around this country call themselves Liberals. I have said to the house before, and I shall not take the time to do it again, that I always twit them with being deceived not merely by a word but by a letter. But I have the hope, if they mean what they say, when they do say that certain things happen to people who have power, that some day they will do something about it.
I wish now to say a word or two from a different point of view, and to suggest that

Private Bills
it is very natural that the minister, when charged with a task, which in some ways looks so similar to what he was doing eight or nine or ten years ago-1 say it is only natural that he should say, "Well, I know how to do all this. This is child's play. This is a piece of cake. All I have to do is take the powers I had last time, make necessary improvements in the powers I had then, cover any weaknesses I found, and add anything we found would have been useful-or comfortable-and put those in this bill." I do not doubt that that is exactly what he has done. I have never had any power myself; probably I would do the same thing if I had it. At any rate it is clear that that is what the minister did.
Now, let us examine the similarity- because I suggest there is similarity. But I suggest there is far, far more dissimilarity and that it is utterly unnecessary for the minister to ask for these vast powers. Perhaps because I am feeling optimistic this afternoon, I am hoping that possibly I might be able to persuade the minister that in certain respects, at any rate, these powers are not necessary.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 39, to incorporate Traders General Insurance Company-Mr. Robinson-Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 40, to change the name of the Dominion Association of Chartered Accountants-Mr. Jeffery-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Name changed.
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 9, for the relief of John Andrew Hague.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 10, for the relief of Jane Louise Welle Kennedy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 11, for the relief of Frances Dan-forth Stephens Ross de Lall.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 12, for the relief of Daphne May Hodgson Frosst.-Mr. Winkler.
Biff No. 13, for the relief of Celia Frances Cantlie Molson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Rowland Walter Tyner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Maeve Mary Margaret McPherson Mackenzie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Judith Francis Cohen Besner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Edith Mary Bentley Towler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Patricia Galley Mulvey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Ethel Kershaw Warren.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Petrus (Peter) Surkala.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Doris Demree McMullen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Isabella Potts Younger Ayton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Margaret Alice McDermid Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Jacqueline Moquin Vemer-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Ruth Chernof-sky Shaffer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Florence Lachovitz Michael.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Eugenia Jean Diakonuk Cuthbertson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Ruth Moffatt Bell Lansing.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Kurt Roberts, otherwise known as Kurt Rosenbaum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Margaret Stevenson Erskine Withenshaw.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Cecile Duguay Quenneville.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Margarette Marie Hyduk Towstuk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Joseph Maurice Fernando Lemieux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Donald' Benedict Cullen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Valeda Ardell Derick Thorley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Martin Raymond Quinn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Kathleen Beatrice Denman Blackadar.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Dora Greenwell MacKinnon.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 44, for the relief of Albert Edouard Desjardins.-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: I think there ought to be some explanation about this next bill.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: No. 44?


George Matheson Murray: I refer to Bill No. 45.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Right to marry again.
Robert Fair: I wonder if we could not put the picture shows out of business by inviting the public to come here and listen to the way we run our business. I wonder if it would not be a good idea to see if we cannot do that. I think this procedure is a disgrace. It has been spoken about dozens of times since I came here, and yet we carry on in the same old way. When will we ever get down to business in connection with this matter? I think it is a darn shame. I am not in the habit of swearing; otherwise I would certainly do a little.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 45, for the relief of Raymond Boyer-Mr. Winkler- Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
George Matheson Murray: This is a rather unusual case, and I think the attention of the house and the country should be drawn to it. As the hon. member has just said, it is not to our credit that we rush through divorce bills in this way. In other words, we allow parliament to become a place for cleaning the linen of domestic tribulation from one of the provinces. I sat here last session, I believe it was, and saw a bill go through along with a number of others without any questions being asked. To my personal knowledge, in granting the divorce in that case we made ourselves parties to inflicting great suffering upon an innocent child, a crippled boy who was wearing iron supports on his legs, a little lad of five or six years of age. In addition there was a very innocent little girl.
Their mother abandoned them. Their father was a Royal Canadian Air Force officer, and we were in the unhappy position of passing
Private Bills-Divorce
that measure without any comment at all or any query. The mother went away with another man and left the children to become objects of pity. If there is no sanctity to marriage we might as well close up parliament because parliament is based upon the proposition that we have established homes in the country. You cannot have a parliament when people are nomads travelling about on horses gathering up women in one town and carrying them on to the next. Parliament is based on the idea of the sanctity of the home and upon the fact of course that Canada is a Christian country. Marriage vows must be taken seriously if marriages are to endure. Of course Hollywood and other places have a very low standard in that respect.
In the case before us are we prepared to pass over this matter lightly, without asking anything about the parties? Hidden in this case is a drama equal to anything in the literature of Greece or Rome. If we lightly pass over these things we destroy the foundations not only of our church and our families, but of parliament. This woman has gone away with a certain American who is known to be a leader among the communists of the United States, who is known to have given money for the carrying on of subversive communistic activities in the United States. He is the son of a very wealthy Chicago family, a man who has had the benefit of everything possible in the way of luxury, education and culture that either the United States or the Canadian system could give. He took this woman away with him to the United States. Whether or not they are living in bigamy is not of any interest to me but I say to this committee that it should pause and closely analyse this bill before making the parliament of Canada a party to the project which is being proposed.


Mr. Wylie:: Mr. Chairman, it is not very
often that I speak in this house, but I do agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Battle River and the hon. member for Cariboo. I have been here longer than the last speaker, and I think it is unfair to every member of this house to pass bills of this kind. It is quite true that evidence is taken before a committee in the other place, but I think it is time that was stopped. Today we are making a joke out of this house by passing these divorce bills. Mind you, I do not disagree with divorce; I think if a couple cannot get along the best thing they can do is separate. But why should they bring these bills into this house, in the way they are brought in? It is just about time it was stopped. For five or six years now I have listened to this sort of thing, and I am getting

Private Bills-Divorce pretty well ted up with it. Why should they not do as they do in other provinces? There is no reason why they should not; and the sooner that is done the better, instead of making a joke out of every member of parliament. That is exactly what is happening today. It is true that we get the evidence, but it is all the same. If you read the evidence in one case you have read it in all the cases. I think it is time the practice was changed.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Chairman, I am against divorce. I know nothing of this case, and I have no means of knowing anything about it; but if you are going to pass this bill I am going to walk out.


Mr. Carroll:: I would like to ask the hon.
member whether the person who is applying for this divorce is in the penitentiary at the present time.


George Matheson Murray: No. It pains me
greatly to have to refer again to this bill. The petitioner is a Canadian citizen, the son of a very distinguished family in this country. If he has made a mistake it is up to us to show Christian tolerance and forgive him that mistake. Here is a man who has been abandoned by this woman who has gone off to openly consort with a leader among the communists on this continent, and I think this is a matter that should be brought to the attention of everyone here.


Mr. Knowles:: The hon. member for Cariboo has levelled a pretty damning indictment against the woman in this case, Mrs. Boyer. If she is the guilty party and Mr. Boyer has been wronged in the way the hon. member for Cariboo says he has, I ask why Mr. Boyer should be made to suffer. This parliament is not being asked to do anything at the request of Mrs. Boyer. We are being asked to grant relief to Mr. Boyer. It seems to me the other circumstances relating to Mr. Boyer do not come into the picture at all.
The fact of the matter is that though members may disagree with divorce, though I may not like it-and I hope none of us likes it-nevertheless it is within the power of this parliament to pass acts of this kind, and these people have the right under the British North America Act to come to parliament and ask for these acts. So long as that right is there, so long as these people have no other recourse, I do not see how parliament can refuse to grant the relief these people seek, so long as they can prove their right in each individual case. Nor do I see that it is any solution to the problem just to get up and walk out of the committee or, as I hear the hon. member for Lethbridge saying, just to talk about it. I am one member of the house, at any rate, who can say something about this matter, because I have proposed a concrete 
method whereby divorces from the provinces where the majority of the people do not want divorce courts could be dealt with in some other way than by parliament. It is very heroic for hon. members to get up and make these pious speeches about how sick and tired they are of this practice, but that reminds me of the old story about the weather. Let us not just talk about it; let us do something about it.
I have made my suggestion; indeed I put it before the house on two occasions in the form of a bill. Apparently it was not acceptable to the Prime Minister and others in this house, though I felt that perhaps it was misunderstood. My proposal was that in the case of persons residing in provinces where there are no divorce courts, divorce actions should be tried by the Exchequer Court of Canada. My thought in that connection was that this was a court that could stay here in Ottawa to hear these cases, and thereby would not be sitting within the provinces where the majority of the people do not want divorce courts; yet it would make available to the people in those provinces who required that relief the opportunity to obtain more properly the right which at present can be granted only by parliament.
If my proposal is not acceptable I suggest to the hon. member for Battle River, the hon. member for Medicine Hat, the hon. member for Ottawa East who just walked out, and any others who do not like it, that they come forward with a better proposal. I am glad to learn that some of the hon. members I have mentioned supported my proposal last year, but I think responsibility does rest upon individual members and upon the government to face up to this issue and find some other way. Let us not try to escape from the whole problem by thinking that if parliament is not prepared to find some other way we are going to deny these people who need this relief a right which is in the British North America Act. Section 91 provides that this parliament has the right to make laws with respect to marriage and divorce.
Frankly I do not see why this fuss should be raised with respect to this one case, particularly when that fuss was based upon the fact that the guilty party-and the hon. member for Cariboo says "very guilty"-is not the one we are asked to accommodate. This bill provides relief for the innocent party, in the manner in which he is by law entitled to it.


George Matheson Murray: I am not making any charges. I am saying that this is a very important, outstanding and very dramatic case. This is a modern interpretation of Samson and Delilah. I do not think that the

Private Bills-Divorce
fathers of confederation intended to put the new government of Canada behind such a project as that in Israelitish history which featured Samson's downfall. This is a modem interpretation of Samson and Delilah and should not be considered: by the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What suggestion has the member for Cariboo to offer?


Mr. LaCroix:: I have a suggestion to make. The only thing is to kill all these bills. Vote them all down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is consistent for the members who take that view, but do they do it? They shout "on division" now and then, but they do not prevent these divorces from going through. There are all these complaints, but the bills go through.


Robert Fair: I do not know anything about this particular case because I do not read the evidence in any of these cases. I believe that in many cases the evidence is trumped up. Time after time you see Barney Toulin, and some of his fellows, in these cases that are brought before the Senate committee. I am rebelling against this case, and I have rebelled against all these cases. I think this farce should be discontinued. If we do not like this legislation, it is our duty to vote against these bills. Then the other members can do something about it in their own province.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall section 1 carry?


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman, I think copies of the evidence should be passed around. Some hon. gentlemen may want to throw them into the wastepaper basket.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall section 1 carry?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I should like to refer to what the member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. He did not think it was right for any member to make flowery speeches against divorce without doing something about it. I am sure that the member knows the stand we have taken on this question in the past. A few minutes ago I believe I stated plainly that I did not object to divorce if the couple could not get along, but I certainly object to the way we are handling the divorce bills from one province. I believe I made that quite clear.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: In the past when divorce bills have come before the house, I have taken part in the debates. Within the last few years I discontinued that practice because there was always someone from the province of Quebec who could explain our attitude to the House of Commons. In the British North America Act, the constitution of
our country, the duty of dealing with divorce devolves upon this parliament. Do not try to tell me you do not like it; try to have an amendment made to the constitution if you will, but you cannot succeed in this house. While we have control over divorce, we cannot shun that responsibility.
In the last eighty years legislation to create divorce courts in the different provinces has been brought before the house. The province of Alberta has such courts, and so has the province of Ontario. Today there are only two provinces in which the citizens have to apply to the dominion parliament to get relief. These divorce bills are brought before a Senate committee which listens to the evidence. This committee grants or rejects the request. The evidence is taken in shorthand and published. Copies of that evidence are sent to the members of parliament, who may or may not study each case. The bill then goes to the House of Commons, receives first and second reading and is referred to the committee on private bills. This committee goes over the evidence, calls witnesses and listens to both parties. Then it renders a decision. The bill is then referred back to the house, to the committee of the whole. Members may speak or put questions to the sponsors of those bills, and elicit all the information they wish. When a vote is called, if members do not like them why do they not vote against them?
In the twenty-one years in which I have been sitting in the house, I think there have been only two or three instances in which divorce bills have been thrown out. If this bill were voted upon, I would vote against it, both on principle and on the evidence. It all comes back to the fact that members who are not living in the province of Quebec want to tell us the way in which we should proceed with divorces. We are not yet ready to admit what they say about divorce courts. Even if we did try to establish divorce courts in the province of Quebec, the local government would not set up the court. In such an event the minority in the province would have no way of getting relief. The majority may be Catholic, but there is a minority. I do not know how this minority in the province of Quebec who believe in divorce could be dealt with. We would have to let them have some way of obtaining relief.
At every session this question seems to be brought forward. On the suggestion of the member for Winnipeg North Centre a committee was set up to consider it. The question seems to be difficult, because the committee did not arrive at any conclusion. In almost every session we spend three, four, or five hours trying to pass divorce bills to
860	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce
help a minority. Though I would vote against them, you do pass them. Members will pick out one case in which they are astounded that a party will make application lor a divorce on such evidence. Ask those people who believe in divorce if they would vote against that bill after reading the evidence. I would do so on principle, because I am against it. I believe it is a very bad thing for the country.
Turning to the system in these other provinces for a moment, here is what I think of it. The evidence is brought before a court, and in the majority of cases the evidence is taken ex parte. If you read the evidence given before the court, you will see it is about the same as that given before the Senate committee. We had a beautiful example right in this district some years ago when an expolice officer investigator in divorce cases was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. He had not brought his evidence before the Senate, but was a witness in an Ottawa court. By keeping these divorce bills here, we believe we will keep down the number of them. I know that is not the opinion of the majority in this house, but it is my opinion. Most members believe that if someone is wronged he should have a right of redress. Now, you may speak in any terms, but before you can change the jurisdiction this parliament has over divorce you have to do a lot of work amongst the Catholics, and amongst the people of the province of Quebec.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I have a moment to express my agreement with some of the things the Minister of Public Works has just said. In the first place I want to say that, from my point of view, I agree with him that we should not try to put divorce courts into any province in which they do not want such courts. Any solution we might make, it seems to me, would have to take that situation into consideration. Those courts would have to be somewhere else, and that was the reason I proposed that these cases be referred to the Exchequer Court of Canada, here in Ottawa.
In the second place, I want to agree with the Minister of Public Works and I want to commend him, in view of his own connections, for making the statement to this chamber that the jurisdiction at the present time is here and that, whether we like it or not, we have to deal with these cases as they come.
The third thing I should like to say to the minister is really a question. I was quite interested in his telling me that there has been a committee at work on the problem, even at work on the suggestion that I put forward in the form of a bill. Can he. tell 

me something more definite about that committee? Is it a committee of the cabinet, a committee of the Liberal party or what is it?


Alphonse Fournier: No, it was not a committee of the house. When this question came up session after session, we asked a group of people to look into it and to see if they could find a solution. We had all the suggestions that had been made in the years gone by. We took out the suggestions and had them studied. They could not find a formula which would meet the agreement of the majority of the people at least in those two provinces I have mentioned. There may be a better way than the House of Commons and the Senate. I do not argue that point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was that committee a
cabinet committee, a party committee, an ad hoc committee or what?


Alphonse Fournier: The ministers had a
committee and studied this question amongst themselves. It was not a public committee that made any report to the public or anything of that kind. They were trying to find the best ways to get out of certain difficulties concerning divorce; and really, we could not find the real solution. We did not even think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was the proper solution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask if that committee is still dealing with the problem?


Alphonse Fournier: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am quite prepared to have anybody or any committee bring forth a better suggestion than the one I made. But I hope that what the minister just told us will result in a further effort being made.
I am glad to know that there was this voluntary or ad hoc committee at work on the problem. I hope the fact that it is now public that there was such a committee will result in further steps being taken to find a solution.


Robert Fair: When I first rose to make a
protest, I said I was opposed to the way divorce bills are handled here. In spite of what the Minister of Public Works has said,
I am still "agin" it, as the Irishman says. I did not undertake at any time to name any province or to suggest to any province how it should handle its divorce cases. That is entirely its business. But I made a plea, and I make it again, that this parliament be relieved of the farce that is being carried on every session, and has been carried on for the past number of years. I might say the same thing of the committee on miscellaneous private bills. Another farce that goes on is the one that goes on there

in getting these private bills through. I served on that committee during the first parliament I was here, and I know that the farce there is just as great as it is here. As to the proceedings in the other place, I do not think there is much difference in some of the cases; I will not say all of them. All you have to do is to read the evidence in some cases. I quit reading them a long time ago.


Wilfrid Lacroix: If we were to reject all the
divorce cases, there would not be so many next year because it would be much more difficult to come before this house.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the title carry?


Wilfrid Lacroix: On division.
Title agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bills Nos. 46 to 74 inclusive, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Aline Alina Buka Allaire.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Margaret Beatrice Tynan Dossin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Kathryn Louise Morrison Ralston.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Gerald Tudor Parrott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Marie Leontine Juliette Henriette Giguere	Fiset.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Esther Marie Henning Ober.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Elmsley Alexander Leftly.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Ruth Landan Goodman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Yvonne Michaud Telford.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Edward Albert Flewitt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Mary Margaret Lillian Phillips Campeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Mary Zientek Latkowski.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Olga Kushner Dolny.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Joseph Taite Connor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Doris Dominiqua Sernuck Wardell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Ann Galganov Schwartz.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Doris Mayoff Weinstein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Jean-Maurice Martel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Ann Astroff.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Audrey Midgley Bennett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Kathleen Agnes Margaret Saddleton Pout Boon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Bill Oleschuk. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Eileen Haswell Houghton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Saul Samuel Goldsmith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Brigitte Dorothea Felicity Gutmann Lowenbach Brooks. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Violet Edith Hack Findlay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Cerna Segall Bercovitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Paulette Charbonneau Lanthier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Ernest Churchill.-Mr. Winkler.
Frederick Davis Shaw: If I were desirous now of directing questions to someone with respect to these cases, to whom would I direct those questions? To whom would I direct any questions I may have now with respect to these cases?


Mr. Maybank:: The co-respondent.


Frederick Davis Shaw: We were advised earlier by the minister we had a right to ask questions in every case. I ask to whom the question is to be directed?


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: What is your question?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Chairman, I may want to know, for example, how many children were involved in each case that you have enumerated;. To whom shall I direct that question?


William F. Carroll: Read the evidence.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Chairman, all this does is supply proof as to what some hon. members have said. The sponsor of the bill is not here, as far as I can see. I do not know of anyone who would be competent to answer the questions that I may ask, so I might just as well not ask them.


An hon. Member:: What do you want to know?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Just one further question before I sit down. Who is moving the motion in each case with respect to these bills right now?

Criminal Code


An hon. Member:: Mr. Winkler.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Lisgar is not here.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The hon. member for Lisgar is not even present.


An hon. Member:: Stand.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Mr.   Baler@: I will move them.


Frederick Davis Shaw: May I ask if the vice-chairman of the committee on miscellaneous private bills is present?


Mr. Sinclair:: Yes; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is here.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Is he able to tell us how many children were involved in the case? Mr. Chairman, there is not much use pursuing the matter further. This indicates just what a farce it all is.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the bills carry?


Wilfrid Lacroix: On division.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall I report the bills?


Wilfrid Lacroix: On division.
Bills reported, read the third time and passed on division.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Jean Zelda Schacter Shmukler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Beatrice Sullivan Lees.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Kathleen Louise Jones Robinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Myrtle Dorcas Perry Rogers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Nell Gohen-berg Lipson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Roslyn Beverly Gold Browman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Rolande Dumas Fritsch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Edith Frances Storrier Ritchie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Dorothy Isabel Pitcher Flipping.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Sylvia Miller Ginsberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Fernand Senecal.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Vincent Tutino. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Paulette Joly Foley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Jean Eurwen Jones Shaw.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Edna Donnelly Boyle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Norma Phoebe Mary Buchanan Baker.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 97, for the relief of Grace Gloria Ramsey Racine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Emily Ivy Rose Cook.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Homer Leavitt Ayer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Elma Lillian Le Drew Wells.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Bertha Ellen Bradley Grant.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Brenda Mary Powell-Tuck Buhr.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. LaCroix for the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Criminal Code (subversive activities).
Hon, Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who introduced this bill indicated at that time what its subject matter was, and then went on to say, and I quote from page 15 of Hansard of February 1:
Following numerous demands from other members and myself, according to the speech from the throne the government has decided to present a bill with an objective which may be similar. If that is done, of course, I much prefer that the government itself go through with it, in which event I might later withdraw my bill.
Now, sir, the government bill which was envisaged in the speech from the throne, and to which my hon. friend referred in the remarks which I have just quoted, has not yet been brought down, nor have we in the Department of Justice brought down our annual crop of Criminal Code amendments. These Criminal Code amendments embody ideas of the department itself, of the commissioners on uniformity of legislation, criminal section, of provincial departments of attorneys general and chiefs of police, and on some rare occasions private individuals.
At this stage I cannot of course make any commitments as to what the contents of these Criminal Code amendments will be, but I do think that it is preferable that the debate upon the subject matter of my hon. friend's bill should be adjourned until we have all of the government legislation which might possibly have any bearing upon the subject matter of my hon. friend's bill before the house, at which time we could examine the whole subject, and I think be in a somewhat better position to estimate the merits of my hon. friend's bill, and the necessity, if that may be, of passing it. I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, move the adjournment of the debate.
Wilfrid Lacroix: I understand that the Minister of
Justice has said that he intends to bring amendments to the Criminal Code before the house which may deal with what I am looking for. If that is so I shall wait until the amendments are known and have my bill stand.
Motion agreed to and the debate adjourned.



STATUTORY HOLIDAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacDougall for the third reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Dominion Day Act and Victoria Day Act.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to make some comments on the third reading of this bill. I propose to begin by confessing that I am somewhat in the nature of a convert because when this first came up I did not take it as seriously as I do now. I think I was wrong then and I am right now.


Mr. MacDougall:: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you.


Howard Charles Green: You may be surprised.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As he is not
here I should like to blame the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Anything I say that is bad I hope will be attributed to him, and if I say anything that is good I shall be very glad to take the credit myself.
The first thing that I wish to say is that I think we, through nobody's fault and nobody's intention, were hustled into this bill; or, at any rate, we blundered into it without giving it the consideration which I think it deserves. I confess myself to being out for a few minutes when the bill was brought down, and it was nearly all over when I got in. If it had not been for the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and one or two others, the bill would be law now.
The first thing that strikes me is that I have not been able to make out that there is any argument for it, except what I call the week-end argument; that is to say, that it would be more convenient to have the holiday come on a Monday, because it is more convenient to have holidays on Monday, and have the day thrown in with Saturday and Sunday.
Well, I admit that that is an argument, and I think if you put that argument suddenly, and without any previous consideration, to a
Statutory Holidays
vast number of voters they would be inclined to say, yes, that is a good idea. But I equally believe that if you took the time to discuss it with a thoughtful citizen he would begin to doubt whether it is such a good idea after all. Perhaps I feel that because it expresses my own mental history in this matter. The question is therefore to ask ourselves:	Is it
just another week end, or is there something of value in it?
I recall again the point which the hon. member for Cape Breton South made which I thought was very sound. He said:	"What
do you think would happen if you asked the ordinary American, or even the extraordinary American, what he would think of casually changing the celebration of the fourth of July to some other day?" He answered the question, as I think we would probably all answer it: We think the ordinary American would toss the idea out of the window pretty quickly.
Perhaps we may sometimes feel that Americans are a little-what shall I say-excitable, a little too dramatic about these matters; but on the whole I feel that the Americans have done a very good job of taking immigrants of the widest possible variety and turning them into pretty good American citizens.
It may be objected, and I think properly so, that in England there is nothing that just corresponds to this; at least I never could discover that there was. But I think there is a reason for that. They have many centuries of history behind them. They have a great homogeneity. They have all their own local customs that go back for hundreds of years, and yet they are integrated in the large sense, too. I think that is the reason that they have not felt it necessary. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in, this country of ours we are as different as can be from them.
I doubt whether there is any country that has more need of celebrating and remembering and trying to cherish and to magnify whatever things of any nature we have that draw us together. I should like to read a brief extract from the book that I hold in my hand, written by a man whose name has been mentioned in this house recently, namely, the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, the chairman of the so-called Massey commission. He wrote a book which is entitled "On being Canadian", and he has a paragraph in that book I should like to read from, and which I think is interesting. He says:
If "the man from Mars" (whose detached views are always so useful) could see us, what would he think of our future as a community? He would see fewer than thirteen millions of people widely scattered over half a continent, more than three-quarters of them living in a ribbon of settlements, broken here and there by wilderness, within two hundred miles of the border between ourselves

Statutory Holidays
and a country nearly twelve times our size with all the physical attraction and the powerful influences which a large body exerts on a small one. He would note that here and there our best roads lead to the south. He would observe that our two leading cities are more than 300 miles apart;
And then skipping some, I read again:
There are forty-two Canadian periodicals carrying advertisements in foreign languages of which thirteen are represented. The Bible is distributed in Canada in over fifty languages. Such is the variety of our racial composition.
And then he says:
With all the difficulties that confront us, would our Martian have some doubts about our future as a nation? Our own confidence should be powerfully reinforced by our success up to the present.
And then he says:
And we have a meaning, however often we may forget it.
I would like to pick up that phrase, "We have a meaning", and to ask, if that is so, whether it does not suggest to us that perhaps we should develop that meaning, and whether this Dominion day is not part of the pattern-and I do not want to press it- but perhaps it is a small part of the pattern, one of the vehicles evolved to help us. I raise that question.
I should like to say, and I think it is true, that Dominion day, confederation, was the greatest achievement of the two original races in Canada, and I am glad to find, having asked French-Canadian members in the house, that le jour de la confederation is respected and celebrated in the province of Quebec. I hope very much that people who can speak on the subject with more authority than I can will be able to say, if it is true-and I believe it is-that it is acquiring significance among our newer citizens. And if that is so, as I think it is, then it seems to me that we should not lightly pass it aside and regard it as just another week end.
I was impressed when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) told us the other night what had been done by the late Mr. McGeer, who was a member of the other place, and whom we all remember as a man of great vigour and' patriotism. He thought it was worth while, apparently despite a good deal of scepticism, to organize in Vancouver a celebration of Dominion day on a scale that had not been done before; and apparently it was a great success.
My feeling is that that is an example we might well follow, that we should cherish and magnify it, and not throw it away. I repeat what I said a moment ago, that I doubt if there is any country which should stress more the common ties that it has than should our country. I cannot help hoping that the House of Commons will take this matter more

seriously than it seemed* likely to do when the subject was first presented. I feel we ought to be able to give a bit of a lead here.
I said a few moments ago, and I believe it, that if you accosted the ordinary voter who had not given the matter any thought, and suggested to him that the day be changed to Monday, I think he would be inclined to say, "Yes; a good idea". But I do feel, as I said before, that if he were asked to think it over for a few moments he would not be nearly so sure; and I think further that if one undertook to make a bit of an argument with him, even as modest as the one I make now, at the end of five or ten minutes he would say, "It is not a good idea at all".
I would remind hon. members that we have a great advantage in the House of Commons. We come down here and1 take part in ceremonies which, I think, impress us very much, ceremonies embedded deep not only in our past but in a past which goes beyond ours. I do not find that people take those things lightly. I believe that, whatever may be the feelings of members when they arrive here, whether they think of them as a lot of fuss and feathers, they become converted, and rather quickly. I have heard no one who has treated them lightly, and I think they come to feel that, behind the dignity of those ceremonies, there is something that goes deeper.
If I am right in that, then I think those of us who have that advantage, one which is not shared by so many of the citizens of Canada, should consider carefully before we do anything which in my opinion would destroy, or at least go far to destroy an institution of great value.
After all, our whole civilization depends upon the belief, the faith and the mental attitude of a great body of citizens. As I said a moment ago, I believe that this celebration, inadequate as it is, should be kept; that it is part of the pattern-a small part, if you like-but certainly a part of the pattern of our life. As I have said, it represents, I believe, the greatest achievement of the two races. That, in itself, is a very great thing.
Lastly I should like to say this. If this is true in ordinary times, then how much truer is it today. Surely we must recognize, as we never did before, that our whole system, our whole civilization, is facing a task. It is facing an organization-and we may use any unpleasant adjective that we wish-but it is an organization which, nevertheless, has a certain toughness, a certain queer, perverted and inverted faith which we have to match with other beliefs and other moral strengths which, in the main, we have to get out of our background and out of our history.

I suggest that this day, which we have come to regard as part of our history-and I am speaking of Dominion day-is a serious part of our lives. I hope very much that there will be others who will join me in speaking in the debate. I shall not abandon hope that members in the house from all parties may, before it is too late, come to the conclusion which I have come to, rather late, I confess, that there is something here -which is worthy of being preserved, and which is more than just another week end.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) is in a flexible frame of mind, and that he has appealed to members to express their opinions, may I say that I am not a convert. I would suggest to him that the great church festival we are now approaching, the festival of Easter, loses nothing in its solemnity because it changes from one month to another.
I am not impressed a bit by the argument that, because Dominion day was held on some day other than the first day of July, it would lose any of its national importance. Easter day is Easter day, no matter whether it falls in March or in April. Dominion day will always be Dominion day whether we celebrate it on the first, second, third or fourth day of the month. I discard the emphasis placed upon the holding of every festival on some particular day of the month. I have to be realistic, and I ask myself what do the people of my constituency wish. I am quite certain that the tourist camps on Vancouver island hope that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and his friends from Vancouver will come and spend a long week end on the island, but what is far more important is that the men working in logging camps high up on the mountain sides want the long week ends so that they *can go back to their families either on the seaboard or on the mainland of British Columbia. They would much rather do that over a long week end than pay for extra meals while lying around logging camps on a Wednesday or Thursday.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the
house will revert to the business interrupted at six o'clock.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the second reading of Bill No. 77, respecting the department of defence production.
Defence Production Act
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was drawing its attention to some of the defects, as I thought, in the bill now before us. I had suggested that the powers given in the bill were virtually going to turn the business of the country into an economy living by the grace of one man, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I was wrong in one particular. I should not have said one man. I should have said one man and a host of delegates of that one man, which on the whole makes the thing much worse because can we believe that we are going to have a large number of men who have the qualities of experience, knowledge, wisdom, moderation and single-mindedness that are going to be necessary to exercise these far-reaching and virtually unlimited powers described to us this afternoon by my leader?
Is that not expecting too much, Mr. Speaker? Are we not merely going to fool ourselves if we do 'that? That is the reason why I said this afternoon I was not going to abandon hope that in the case of this measure the minister might be prepared to do something like what was done last evening by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in making alterations in the emergency powers bill. I hope the same thing may be done with this measure.
I also spoke of freedom, and I should like to make this further comment that if by our own act we destroy our freedom it is a kind of suicide which would be much worse than physical suicide because I think we can say that people of our country do value freedom more than anything in the world. I know it is awfully hard to make people, who have never known a country where, except in an emergency, there was any restriction on freedom, believe that it could ever be serious. Of course we know that our enemies believe -and I think genuinely-that the stresses we are going to be put under in this cold war or semi-twilight war, or whatever you wish to call it, are going to be so severe that they indulge in the hope that it may break down the things that we really care about. I have no doubt as Russian agents follow our debates, as they are no doubt doing, that they must be very pleased indeed to feel that we find it necessary, if we are going to find it necessary, to resort to powers almost incredible in peacetime.
If I remember rightly the minister himself referred to them this afternoon as extraordinary, and if he regards them as extraordinary we can be sure they are because

Defence Production Act he is quite an expert in powers himself, and I would accept his view on that subject.
With this background I should like to look at some of the practical workings of the bill. I said this afternoon that I thought the situation has a good deal of similarity superficially with the situation which existed during wartime, and also a good deal of dissimilarity. I hope to be able to show that the dissimilarity is much greater than the similarity. Of course the similarity is1 obvious enough. The minister is going to be asked to supply ships, planes, tanks and guns, all the same kind of things that he supplied: during the last war. I realize that, and I think that similarity has naturally impressed the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I do not think it was very hard for him to be impressed, and I think he has not felt it necessary to ask himself any very searching questions as to the dissimilarity.
I should like to say that I think the situation today is just as dissimilar as it can be. In the first place we are not at war. I take it-and I am sure the minister will agree with this part of my speech-that in wartime you have all kinds of unexpected situations to deal with. Ships are being torpedoed. Battles are being won and lost. Equipment in huge amounts is disappearing in unexpected ways, either by torpedoing or by loss in battle. New situations are arising. Perhaps new allies are coming in or some allies are being knocked out. I take it that every conceivable kind of situation has to be faced. One might say that the keynote is uncertainty, and I can imagine that with all the uncertainty of those days there may have been reasons for special powers which I suggest very earnestly do not exist today.
In wartime the minister had powers, and I particularly want to refer to the powers proposed under section 16 of the bill, the financial section. First I want to go back and make clear why I think the situation today is so dissimilar. I tried to indicate that in wartime uncertainty was the keynote, that the minister never knew very far ahead just what his task was, and that all kinds of unexpected things could arise for which it was fair and right that he should have unexpected powers. What is the situation now? The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) came into the house some three weeks ago and outlined to us in considerable detail the program of defence production over the next three years. He went into' very great detail. We were told about planes, guns, ships and so on. After setting out his requirements in considerable detail the

Minister of National Defence said, as recorded at page 95 of Hansard:
This1 report indicates something of the size of the equipment program now under way and gaining momentum from day to day.
Then he added:
To meet these requirements a new department of the government, the Department of Defence Production, is being proposed.
What I wish to stress is that there is all the difference in the world between the task the minister had roughly ten years ago and the task he has now. The task then, as I said, was full of uncertainties, full of unexpected situations. I have no doubt that if the minister cared to do so he could give us many illustrations of how his problems changed from month to month and indeed quite often from day to day. Here none of these elements are present, as far as I can see. True, no one can foresee the future. Within a month, if certain unhoped-for things should arise, the situation might be different, but I think we are entitled to take the situation as it is today; and the situation as it is today is that for the next three years-and incidentally I hope this legislation will not cover any period longer than that-the minister is asked to make preparations, to get the materials and let the contracts to take care of a defence program which he now knows and which, unless there are untoward international events, is not likely to be altered substantially. I suggest that is just as different from the task the minister had in wartime as chalk is from cheese, and that there is no basis in reason and common sense for the same powers to be asked now, in peacetime, to do a task which is known, which is definite and which, subject to the qualification I made, is not likely to change.
This house is the judge, and I can only hope that these grave questions will not be decided with a careless laugh and the slogan "Good old C. D.", which as far as I can make out is the basis on which a vote on this subject was given last year. In the proper circumstances I could say "Good old: C-. D." too, but I do noit think, as the old song says, it has anything to do with the case when we are dealing with serious matters. I would remind the minister and the house that after all, while he is free from many human weaknesses, he is not free from mortality, and we cannot guarantee that he will be permanently in this position even though the fortunes of his party should continue to prosper.
As I have said before, I hope parliament will not make this national emergency an occasion for setting up a private kingdom for

the minister. I want to remind hon. members of what was said earlier in the day, that the minister not only does not much like sharing his powers with parliament; he does not much like sharing his powers with members of his own party, and he has a great aversion to even sharing his powers with the cabinet. So we find that a very considerable number of those powers belong to the minister. I think I can understand why. I think the minister is the kind of man who has great power of decision, and he is not always wrong. I think he likes to make a decision without being held up by too much discussion, even in the cabinet. So when hon. members read this bill, as I hope they will, they will be perhaps a little astonished to find the number of powers held by the minister alone. Oh, there are some cases where the governor in council comes in, but I am inclined to think that most of the sections containing the most extravagant powers do not contain any dilution, and that the minister himself exercises those.
I should like to briefly illustrate what I mean when I say those powers are quite unnecessary, by referring to section 16, which is the monetary section and which sets up what is called a defence production revolving fund; I do not propose to quote the section. In brief, this fund in the first place gives the minister a little kitty of $100 million, which may be perfectly proper. Beyond that, however, it also gives him power to buy all kinds of materials related to defence; and as I said this afternoon, when you read the sections you find it very difficult to think of anything which is not covered in one way or another by defence. The minister has power to stockpile these things; he has power to act as agent for other governments, and he has power to make loans for various matters. Those are the outgoing amounts. Then there are various funds which come in. When he buys materials and sells them, of course that is money coming in. When he buys materials for a foreign government and the money comes back, that is a receipt; and there are other receipts which I need not go into. The point I want to make is that this fund, this kind of backlog of $100 million, through the various receipts and expenditures which would be permitted under the wide powers given the minister might very easily enable him over the course of a year to do hundreds of millions of dollars of business; and quite properly, too, provided there is a proper restriction on his power.
But I point out, Mr. Speaker, that as far as parliament is concerned we might as well be sitting in the moon, or in central Africa, for all we will ever know about it. No; I am
Defence Production Act wrong on one point. There is one qualification, one time the minister has to come back to parliament. That is when he sustains a loss. The section does say that when losses are sustained the minister really has to come back and tell us about them. That is very decent of him; I think we should be very grateful for that. When a loss is sustained, parliament does have to authorize it.
I want to stress that a bit, because as far as I understand, from such inquiries as I have been able to make, parliament will find out about all these interesting transactions when it sees the public accounts. Well, you know the child's old rhyme; this year, next year, some time, never. We get the public accounts, if I remember rightly, a good many months after the month of March in the year following the time these transactions take place. So in respect of transactions early in the year it would be nearly two years before we would get the information, though I suppose in some cases we might get the information in not much more than a year. That is why I say we might as well be sitting in the moon as far as any knowledge we may have of what is going on is concerned.
What is the need for that? In wartime, as I said earlier, we put up with a lot because we were frightened, and also because we felt that the emergency powers would come to a natural end when the war ended. But there is no natural end to this. If the world situation goes on as it well might, in this unsettled condition, this could mean five years or ten years, or as long as you want to imagine. I suggest that it does not seem very intelligent for people who spend a lot of time talking about freedom to give that power unless there is some strong reason for it. I would be quite open-minded, as evidently the members who-were in this house during the war were, in accepting the view in wartime that with the changes and vicissitudes which I tried to outline we should be very generous. We should be generous now, I think, but I do not. believe we should be downright silly and stupid, and just panic into giving power with out some reason as to why we should.
Let us look at the reason here. As I have tried to outline this to you, and I think it is fair, the minister starts off with $100 million, and with the various incomings and outgoings he will have he will be able, as I say, to have a kingdom of his own which we Will know nothing about because there is no provision for any reports as to the contracts which are to be made. So far as I can see we in this parliament will know nothing about it until we get the public accounts. It is rather difficult to get as interested as you
868	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act should in things that are two years old, when you know you cannot do anything about them anyway. Therefore I suggest, unless there is an excellent reason why we should try to avoid it, I even hope, the minister will try to avoid it.
As I pointed out, we had a statement from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) as to his requirements. Presumably his estimates will come along year by year, so many hundreds of millions each year. There is no mystery about that. They will come before parliament, and we shall have a chance of considering them and voting on them. Now, where does this department of defence production come in? Let us take an illustration. Uniforms will be needed, let us say in the coming year of 1952. I understand, quite naturally, it will probably be almost routine that the department of defence production will lay in a lot of textile material to be used in the making of those uniforms. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why that cannot come in as an estimate of the department of defence production in the financial year 1951-52. I do not see why we need to have all this machinery, all these powers away off in a corner where nobody knows what is happening. I still hope the minister may take that view, or if he does not that parliament may take that view, and that members may ask why they cannot approve the figures in advance.
Now, let me put in one qualification. Even though the program is known, even though the minister can see three years ahead what his task is and what his requirements are going to be, there may be unexpected things which will come up. I believe there should be some leeway given, if necessary. Supposing that, contrary to my expectations, the minister should rise and say that was a reasonable suggestion by the member for Greenwood and that he would agree that he can put his requirements in estimates for the year 1951, but will need a certain amount of leeway for this and that. I believe that if the minister were as reasonable as I suggest he might possibly foe, I would be equally reasonable and suggest there should be some leeway. I say again that the more I study these wide powers and add them to the other sections which were particularly referred to this afternoon, the more it seems to me we are just taking a steam hammer to crack a nut.
The minister has these wide powers, and they are fine. It is rather dramatic to have wide powers; it is very convenient and very comfortable. I am sure the minister would be bored to death, having had the powers which he did have during the war, if he now had to go out and do a job which in some ways is similar without being clothed with


these almost godlike powers. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, taking this one section that I have mentioned as an illustration, I believe there is no earthly reason why these wide powers should be given. Even yet I hope the minister will to some extent agree. I have perhaps a tiny scintilla of hope that if the minister does not agree possibly his colleagues or some of his party members might still have some influence over him and prevent us from panicking into these powers. These powers are in contradiction of everything we say we believe in, and contrary to the oft-repeated principles of Liberalism which are being watered down so thin. They are contrary to what one wise man once called the immortal grounds of common sense.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, 1 desire to make a few remarks on this subject, and to endorse what was so well set forth by both the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and my leader this afternoon. In principle, I believe this defence bill is necessary but I certainly do not agree with the drafting of the bill. It seems to me that this is an effort to maintain peace in this country. I do not think anyone argues but what the great fear is of communism, and that if anyone declares war upon us it will be those behind the iron curtain. Surely if it is dictatorship of which we are fearful in this country, then we have dictatorial powers in this bill.
When I read the bill and could find no provision in it for a report to parliament, I could hardly credit it. I was pleased to hear the minister say he would accept an amendment to provide for a report to parliament. I believe that is most essential. However, when one considers that the controllers who will be appointed will be above the courts of this land, I believe that is an impossible situation in a democracy such as this. The bill contains a provision that if any of these controllers have done things in good faith they are above the courts of this nation. I believe that is totally wrong in every respect. There are many sections in this bill which I believe are altogether too drastic. I hope that after the discussion tonight the minister will see fit to take some time and have the bill redrafted.
During the presentation of the bill the minister stated we had an illustration of the effects of the last great war. I do not think everything was entirely satisfactory there. I am willing to admit that the minister is a great organizer, a great driver. He may have the confidence of big business in this country, but I do not think he should have all the powers contained in this bill. During the last war some people made a lot of money through

the department of munitions and. supply. There are several instances to which I might refer, but I would not have time to go into any detail. I know some people in my own province of Manitoba who were paid handsome profits for their property. We had several of these illustrations.
In the last issue of The Legionary, March, 1951, there is an article appearing on page 4 headed "Serious Flaw". Reference is made to the government's defence program announced by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). They cite the highlights of his address and point out certain serious weaknesses. Then, there is the other pamphlet which the Legion put out in which they state:
We have reason to believe that the chief obstacles in the way of implementing the Legion's demands are a serious shortage of ships, planes, equipment, and even boots and clothing.
We should have a department set up to supply these people as quickly as possible, and to see that the people who are offering their lives in defence of our way of life are equipped just as quickly as possible. I do not think there is any argument about that.
In the discussion this afternoon when there was an interchange between my leader and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is likely to be the minister responsible for this new department and the dictator of this country, my leader made some reference to the fact that the minister was very fond of taking over control in all departments of government. I was amazed to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), of all people, remark, "Who is winning the next election for us?" Surely this department is not to be used for anything like that. I know there are some people who have some doubts about it, but the Minister of Justice-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I certainly must protest, Mr. Speaker. My reference was not to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), much as I admire him and much as I admire the contribution that he makes to our party. My reference was to the hon. member's leader.


James Arthur Ross: At the dinner hour, Mr. Speaker, I happened to check the Hansard report and I will read it word for word. In this exchange our leader said:
I am certainly not taking myself as seriously as the Pooh-Bah of the government who seeks to control every department.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Who is winning the next election
for us?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I said he is winning the next election for us. I am glad my hon. friend raised this question, and if there is any question about Hansard, let us clear it up
Defence Production Act right now. There was no question in my mind but that the hon. gentleman to whom I was referring was their esteemed leader.


James Arthur Ross: If the Minister of
Justice has changed his mind, all right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; he has not changed his mind.


James Arthur Ross: Or if he wishes to change Hansard it is all right. I am quoting the Hansard report as I found it at the dinner hour. The quotation continues:


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Justice, sworn to
observe the laws of parliament and the principles of parliament, can never get past party politics at any time and never will.
That is a Hansard quotation. Anybody can take whatever interpretation he likes.
However, that brings me to another point, because the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to experiences in the past war when we were in what I think was a sorry plight in a case like this. Again the Minister of Justice had something to do with that, and so did the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I refer to this combines investigation and the flour milling report. I want to quote a paragraph or two because, again,, many things have happened in the last two or three years when the Department of Justice has been seriously letting down the nation, having regard to the leadership it gave and the status that it held in this country during all the history of the country since confederation. In the fall of 1949, as reported in Hansard of November 7, page 1500, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
Therefore I called the attention of the Minister of Justice to the situation and I urged him not to table the report without further investigation...
That report, Mr. Speaker, was dated by the commissioner December 29, 1948. The law requires that it should be made public within fifteen days.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, has this anything to do with the bill we have before us or the predecessor bill?


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Arthur Ross: The Prime Minister said it had a great deal to do with the last war; and the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to the last war in his remarks this afternoon.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What war is the hon, member talking about? As I understand it, it occurred in 1948, did it not?


James Arthur Ross: I will quote what the minister said about it, as reported at page 1524 of Hansard of November 7, 1949:


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, Mr. Speaker, it relied upon the fact that any democratic government is answerable to the people of the country for its acts.

Defence Production Act
That is quite true. I think that is probably why it was not tabled within fifteen days.


Mr. Cleaver:: What about a speech on wheat?


James Arthur Ross: I will be around to wheat on another occasion.


Hughes Cleaver: You are going on with it tonight, apparently.


James Arthur Ross: At page 1526 of Hansard the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said:
And1 I now feel it is only fair to the Minister of Justice that I should inform the house that he had discussed these matters with me, and I had concurred in the line of conduct he was adopting. I should bear, therefore, a portion of the responsibility, if there is responsibility, for attempting to carry out the implied or express undertaking given to Canadian industry that if they did their best to help us win the war, they were not going to be pilloried afterwards under the Combines Investigation Act.
That is the war the Prime Minister referred to, and contained in many pages of Hansard are the various arguments which the Minister of Trade and Commerce set forth for not permitting the tabling of that report, despite the fact that, at page 79 there was evidence to the effect that they had conducted a double set of minutes. True enough, only the courts could have proved that matter; and the Department of Justice, which was sworn to observe the laws of the land, made sure that nobody had1 the opportunity to test that matter in the courts. It probably does not become me to lecture the Minister of Justice, but I wish, apart from him or anybody else, they would maintain the high tradition that has been held by the Department of Justice throughout the history of this country.
Further than that, having regard to the fact that this statement was made about winning the next election-it is, of course, a matter of interpretation-it is rather strange that within that fifteen days the then minister was out in Winnipeg addressing a Liberal rally on January 11, 1949.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member now is getting a little bit too far from the bill which is before the house.


James Arthur Ross: I shall not go any
further in that respect now. But we had that matter straightened out in the house, and the correction made was never carried forward by the minister following his speech at that time. As has been pointed out, irrespective of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce may be the minister to administer this new act, most of this legislation is drafted by the Department of Justice. I therefore think there is a great responsibility resting upon the minister and his officials. Up until we have a declaration of war at


least I would hope that there would be much less dictatorial powers granted under this act than what the bill now provides for. I sincerely hope that amendments at least will be accepted whereby these controllers will come under the law of the land. While some of these controllers may be extremely efficient, others of them may be extremely inefficient. I have known of some things that have happened in the past as the result of the action of some of these officials who do not stand too high in this country. Surely if we are not going to have recourse to the courts of the land, we are getting a long piece from what we have been accustomed to since confederation in this country.
I think this is an extremely important matter. While the bill is lengthy, and there are many of these dictatorial clauses in it, I want to appeal to the minister to reconsider those facts. As I pointed out at the commencement of my remarks, this whole issue concerning rearmament and the raising of manpower is in order to show our strength against communism in this world and that we mean business. But surely if we are fighting a dictatorship and the fear of it, we should be doing it in a democratic fashion. I would hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for this bill, and his colleague, the Minister of Justice, after the discussion this evening, would consider withdrawing the bill for the moment, and having a new bill drafted in a more democratic fashion for presentation to this house.


An hon. Member:: What a hope!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this department of defence production is being set up to handle a large program running into $5 billion. Speaking in the house a week ago today I expressed the opinion that the Canadian people were entitled to have given to them an interim report telling them where this money was being spent, as far as the government knew at that time. It is of course impossible now to give detailed financial plans as to just exactly where the money is going to be spent. But this matter has been under consideration for several months now, and the government must have in their minds some reasonably formed plans as to what they propose to do when this production program gets rolling. With that in mind, speaking in this house a week ago, I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) if he would give us such an interim report dealing particularly with the production of such items as planes, tanks, vehicles, guns and small arms; because I feel that those are all things which, if we get into a shooting war,

the men that fight the battles of this country will be using as their equipment. We produced all or most of these things during the last war; and having talked to a great many ordinary people about this program, or having had them talk to me, these are the things that they want to know about. These are the questions they ask, and I think it is about time that the people of the country were told where we are going and where their money is being spent or is to be spent.
Speaking on that I said at page 629 of Hansard:
Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce now, or very soon, give the house an idea of just how we stand today in regard to this program? What are the government's plans in the making? We should have that information so that the people can be advised where we are going. It is vitally important to them.
Then I went on to ask:
Will the minister give us some idea as to what the plans are, for instance, for producing planes, tanks, vehicles, guns and small arms? As I say, I do not expect detailed plans, because I do not suppose that is possible at the present time. But there must be some thinking, some preliminary plans along that line. We should like to be told whether at the present time we are planning on making chese kinds of war materials? Either we are or we are not. What are the plans so far?
The Minister of Trade and Commerce answering said:
The Minister of National Defence gave a comprehensive and I think a very detailed analysis of the plans of the armed services for weapons. I tried to cover in a general way the purchasing arrangements to back up those plans.
From that I took it that the information I was asking for was contained in the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), given in the house on February 5 of this year. Therefore, having great confidence in the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I looked up the speech of the Minister of National Defence to get my answer, feeling that there would be the answers which the people of this country, and particularly the people who had been talking to me, were asking for.
Here is what the Minister of National Defence had to say. I should like hon. members to judge whether or not this is the kind of information that I asked for and the people are entitled to receive. The minister had this to say, as reported at page 95 of Hansard, half way down the last column under the heading "Equipment":
This report indicates something of the size of the equipment program now under way and gaining momentum from day to day.
To meet these requirements a new department of the government, the department of defence production, is being proposed.
Defence Production Act And that of course is what we are dealing with now. I continue with the quotation:
In the first nine months of the present fiscal year, which ended on December 31, 1950, 80,000 orders were actually placed with industry. During this period orders have been placed with trade and commerce for the sum of $701 million.
The main items are: Aircraft, $331 million; ships, $96 million; radar and wireless, $50 million; clothing and textiles, $35 million; motor vehicles, $50 million; armament, $26 million; construction, $113 million.
In the year before the second world war the Department of National Defence spent $34,432,839, and even during 1939-40 only $125 million. It has been suggested that the position of defence industry today corresponds to what it was about two years after the beginning of the last war but with much greater potential capacity.
Additional orders are being placed for ships, seaward defences, electronic devices and wireless, for army equipment of United States pattern, for aircraft, including Harvard trainers and engines.
As hon. members who visit the plant at Canadair Limited will see tomorrow, new aircraft are beginning to roll off the production lines.
These large expenditures on equipment are brought about by the staggering cost of modern equipment. Some figures about these costs have already been made public.
A new anti-submarine vessel costs over $8 million; a two-engine fighter, $750,000; a single engine jet interceptor, over $400,000; a new airfield with runways, buildings and equipment, $20 million; a radar station with buildings and equipment, from $3 million to $6 million.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very fascinating subject, this. Mr. Hees: I continue:
Reference has been made to the equipment we are producing and the men we are training for the North Atlantic treaty nations out of the appropriation of $300 million voted last year. Most of this appropriation has either been already committed or is covered by orders for equipment and plans for services now being arranged for.
Part of our equipment program will be to replace the equipment we are sending to Europe by equipment of United States pattern.
Canada has had greater reason than any country to feel strongly about the need for standardization. One obstacle was the large quantities of United Kingdom type equipment we already have on issue or in mobilization stores-most of the armament for four divisions.
This equipment was of the kind needed to strengthen the defences of Europe, where there were trained men with empty hands.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not read the bible instead? Mr. Hees: I continue:
It occurred to us that Canada could make a very substantial contribution to collective defence by shipping this equipment to them. This also was the only practical way for us to standardize on United States pattern. As related above, the armament for a division has already been shipped. Our offer of 25-pounders to Luxembourg has been accepted. Our offer of another division's equipment is under consideration. The rest will be supplied-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Have you a rule about reading speeches, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Broadview is not reading his speech. I

Defence Production Act undftr.cc.r-i he is reading an extract from a speech delivered by another hon. member of the house.


An hon. Member:: An extract?


Mr. Speaker:: However, I might say that I think it is a rather long extract and I am going to suggest to the hon. member that it is not usual to read such long extracts.


Alphonse Fournier: On a point of order, according to citation 241 an hon. member speaking may not refer to another debate of the same session on another question not then under discussion. The hon. gentleman is reading what was debated on the speech from the throne. That has been voted on and the question has been closed.


George Alexander Drew: May I intervene for one
moment? There is a difference between reviewing a debate and whether a quotation may be lengthy or otherwise. We have a statement which seems to call for some answer in regard to a bill of this kind. While some hon. members seem to feel that the preliminary quotation was fairly long, the statement that has been arrived at in this quotation is that this was the only way for us to standardize on United States equipment. That has a very important bearing on the thoughts that a number of hon. members have here as to the necessity of assuring that under this legislation certain things will be done, because on an earlier occasion the minister was repeating the statement he had made nearly two years ago that standardization had actually been decided upon. I suggest that there is a difference between bringing forward a point of this kind and merely reviewing a debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Broadview has read enough from the extract.


George Harris Hees: I am practically through, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important quotation.


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest that the hon. member do not read any more.


George Harris Hees: I shall be very glad to.


Clarence Decatur Howe: An easy way to make a speech- just read somebody else's.


George Harris Hees: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) suggested it, and I felt I could do no wrong if I followed his biddiiiS.
What this all adds up to is that in the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) we got no information whatever of the specific type that the people of this country are clamouring for. The government may think it is unreasonable for people to want to know where their money is going. But five billions of dollars is a great deal of
(Mr. Speaker.]

money and, of course, it comes out of the pockets of all the taxpayers of this country. And as the equipment produced will be used by the sons, the fathers and the brothers of people in this country it is very important for them to know what kind of equipment these men will handle in battle.
So I would earnestly urge again that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as I requested earlier, give serious consideration to giving a statement to the house. In fact, when he spoke a week ago today he did agree that he would make a statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When did I do that? Read to me where I did that.


George Harris Hees: Very gladly, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: That might possibly be another breach of the rules.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I like to hear him read.


George Harris Hees: And I am very glad to be able to accommodate the minister in this regard; because at .the end of my request to him I concluded by saying-well, perhaps I should expand a little on what I did say at that time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, start back at the beginning and read it again. You read it before; now read it again.


George Harris Hees: I said:
I am not asking the minister for any detailed report on contracts. That naturally is unreasonable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What page is that?


George Harris Hees: That is at page 630 of Hansard for this session.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What debate?


George Harris Hees: The debate on the resolution preceding this bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Proceed.


George Harris Hees: I think I was speaking about five o'clock in the afternoon of that day.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe it was five-twenty.


George Harris Hees: However, I shall start again.


Alphonse Fournier: No, no, please!


George Harris Hees: I said:
I am not asking the minister for any detailed report on contracts. That naturally is unreasonable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He is just kidding the house instead of the public.


George Harris Hees: But, for instance, on the question of tanks, I for one have no idea whether we plan to make tanks in this country, or not; whether we plan, for instance, to make any kind of vehicles in this country or not. I heard a report that we plan to make jeeps and some sort of trailer vehicle. But that came from outside the house. I for one have heard no reports of a definite nature on vehicles. There was one report on a certain type of gun, but I have not heard anything on small arms.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understood the hon. member was going to refer to a question he had asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: About half a column further down.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should read more.


George Harris Hees: I say further on:
I should like a brief general answer if I can get it.
That was after I had asked the minister for a statement, specifically on planes, tanks, vehicles, guns and small arms, to state if possible the types he had in mind at the present time for production, what kind of quantities the government had in mind as a start, and when we might reasonably expect this production to begin. I concluded by saying:
I should like a brief general answer if I can get it.
And then the minister said, as it is reported at page 630 of Hansard:


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will be glad to make it on the bill.
And so I would renew my request for a statement to be made at the earliest possible moment. As I said at that time, the request is made in all sincerity. It was at that time, and it is now. I am not asking for anything unreasonable in the way of a detailed plan. Rather, I am simply asking the minister to tell the people what the government is thinking about in terms of plans to put that five billion dollars into operation to produce the vitally needed war materials we are going to require for our defence effort.
I think that is a reasonable request. I am not doing it with a view to embarrassing the minister or putting him on the spot, nor am I asking for any details which it would not be reasonable to expect. But surely after eight months of what has been described many times as the twilight war, it is reasonable to expect that the minister and his department must surely by now have some reasonably definite plans in the making for our defence effort of the future. I would ask the minister as soon as possible to fulfil his undertaking given to me a week ago, and to make a statement as early as possible respecting those specific items.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, in the country where I spent my boyhood, the hares go mad in March. I have no quotations to make, and I am not going to try in this connection to convert my hon. friend from Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). In fact, like him, I agree in principle-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are not like him, surely, are you? I would not admit it, if I were you.
Defence Production Act


George Randolph Pearkes: In this respect, that I agree in principle with the setting up of this Department of Defence Production. I realize, as he does, that the minister in charge of the department must be given certain powers in order that teeth may be put into the legislation so as to enable him to produce the equipment so essential for our defence forces. Like him, I feel there should be no unnecessary powers, or powers which are not essential, given to the minister. That point has been dealt with, and I shall not refer to it again.
I am going to be perhaps presumptuous and offer a little advice to the minister, but in a very friendly way. I would draw to his attention the utmost importance of timing in this matter of defence production. I presume defence production will be linked closely with the three-year defence plan announced by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). Some of the equipment for those forces, in order that they may be made ready, is urgently needed and must be produced in the very shortest possible time. That applies particularly to those forces which are now, and which within the next few weeks will be, in Korea; and to those forces, including ground and air forces, which will be moving to Europe in the near future. It applies also to our airborne brigade which, here, may be required to meet a sudden emergency. It applies in so far as the reserve forces are concerned, particularly those of the army, because they must be given sufficient equipment to carry out their ordinary training.
In the past there has been some evidence of shortage of equipment. I am not going to elaborate upon it, but I feel that possibly the arrangements which had existed heretofore had not had sufficient teeth in them to enable the minister to procure, in the face of a booming civilian market, articles which are urgently needed. I hope that the rather leisurely methods which have been applied by the Canadian Commercial Corporation will be speeded up in certain respects so that manufacturers making equipment for the services will realize that it is a priority job, and that they must not let their service contracts take second place to more attractive civilian demands.
On the other hand, there is a great deal of equipment which is not so urgently needed and which can be produced after a lapse of time. There is always a danger that at the outbreak of a war your forces are so fully equipped that the equipment is obsolescent after a few months' time. Surely it is the history of all wars that the equipment with which you start a war is soon out of date. I fancy that I have noticed a trend in defence production which stresses the urgency of taking equipment off the production line no

Defence Production Act matter whether it is the very best or whether it is really urgently needed at the present time. "Let us equip our whole force" seems to have been almost the slogan of certain individuals. Therefore they have gone to a production line in the United States or elsewhere and have unloaded certain materials, equipment and arms on our armed forces which were not really urgently needed at the time, and which could be produced by Canadian manufacturers or could have been replaced after a little while with a better type of material.
I am rather inclined to feel that it is like the man who needs a suit. He cannot get a suit of clothes made by his tailor because his tailor is busy, and he goes to a store and takes an inferior suit off a rack. I should like to issue something of a warning that we do not want any shopworn suits supplied to our forces. When I use the word "suit" I am speaking figuratively, and I am not only referring to uniforms. It must be clearly borne in mind that some of our forces are required for the expansion period. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) referred in his speech to that portion of our armed forces which would provide the manpower for the expanded forces if we should ever enter upon a third world war. I suggest that there is not the same urgency to equip those forces. There is an opportunity for such organizations as Canadian Arsenals Limited to carry out thorough investigation of the type of arm or equipment which will be most desirable, and then to have that put into production in Canada.
I hate to feel that it is possible for a Canadian manufacturer to say: I could have made that if I had known anything about it. Here is a chance to give our Canadian manufacturers the opportunity to build up an industry which will be invaluable to us. See that Canadian Arsenals Limited is working to full capacity, something which I question very much that they are doing at the present time. That is the sort of general advice which I tender in all sincerity to the minister for his consideration.
I want to turn now from the rather broader plane to something which I am afraid you will describe as being of a very local character. I am tempted to make these remarks because I referred a little earlier in the evening to the logging and lumbering industry on Vancouver island. As everybody knows, lumber is a very essential war material. It is urgently required for all kinds of war purposes. As everybody knows, we have a great lumber industry on Vancouver island, but the bottleneck at the present time lies in the ability to ship the lumber off the
[Mr. Pearkes.l

island. It is true there is a shortage of shipping but there is also a shortage of facilities for loading ships at the main ports on Vancouver island.
I have personally seen one vessel loading, another out in the bay and still a third waiting for an opportunity to come in and tie up at the single berth available. If we are going to make the fullest possible use of the amount of lumber that can be produced from our forests, I feel that the question of facilities for loading the very limited number of ships that can be made available for the purpose should be investigated. I know that the larger companies are able to construct their own assembly wharves. Only last week I heard of one company which is building an additional berth at its loading wharf on Vancouver island, but the big companies are operating in the more inaccessible forests of the island leaving many stands of timber to be cut by smaller companies and sent to smaller mills. The small mills have to depend upon the government facilities to get their lumber off the island onto their ships. When it comes to the question of investigating the various means for increasing war industries and making this lumber accessible, may I suggest that this matter be investigated with a view to providing full facilities for the export of the lumber which can be cut in our mills.
(Translation):


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, since the bill provides
for price controls, I take the liberty of asking the government to establish price controls as soon as possible. We are all aware that the cost of living has reached an astronomical figure and is rising every day.
The government should, I think, establish price controls as soon as possible. Otherwise, the large trusts that control foodstuffs and essential commodities will have time to accumulate large stocks. Then, when the time comes to set basic prices, the trusts holding a monopoly over the purchase, sale and distribution of those products will be in a position to reap tremendous profits.
Immediate action is necessary in order to prevent profiteers from exploiting the people.
There is another point which is of special concern to me; it has to do with statements made recently in the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). He said he intended to return to the system of dollar a year men whom he would choose from the directors of big corporations, monopolies and

industries who control our Canadian economy. That, to my mind, would be a mistake because it would mean putting price control back in the hands of those who are interested in seeing prices rise.
Let me suggest instead the establishment of a price arbitration committee that would include representatives of labour, of the white-collar workers, in short, of people who are completely independent of monopolies.
You know as well as I do that, during the last war, most of the dollar a year men controlling our national economy were directors of large corporations or connected with big concerns. You also know that while they got a dollar a year from the Canadian government, they were still drawing their salary from those companies and necessarily remained interested in the existence and future of their firms.
I feel that this time, in order to satisfy public opinion, when price controls are being considered, we should appoint an arbitration committee to study individual cases, to hear legitimate representations from the various organizations concerned, and then to establish adequate price controls in a serious, independent and competent manner.
Those were the only remarks I wanted to make tonight. I have made them because I feel that it is high time the government took steps to prevent stockpiling and monopolistic profiteering at the expense of the public.
In closing, once again I emphasize the need for prompter government action in setting up price controls in Canada.
(Text):


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise somewhat reluctantly, for two reasons, to take part in this debate. So much has been said already by those who have preceded me, and said so well, that it seems somewhat redundant to add anything further. But the matter is of such importance, because of the tremendous powers entailed in this bill, that in spite of the repetition that is bound to occur in what I have to say I still think it is worth saying. I am reluctant also because I do not feel in a position to properly criticize the very broad powers contained in this bill. As I believe Professor Corry said the other night, the opposition should be supplied with a secretariat which would enable them to prepare for legislation of this kind.
Defence Production Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: You should bring down a little mental power.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I presume the minister will
corral all that, too. Under this bill he will have power to almost take our brains, though for that matter I do not suppose we have very many. In a famous speech last year the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said there was no alternative to the Liberal party. Those who heard him and those who read the speech got the idea that he was suggesting the Liberal party was going to set up a dictatorship. Well, I believe under this bill the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) definitely will have the power to establish himself as a dictator. I do not believe Joseph Stalin or the late Adolf Hitler had any more powers than the minister will have under this bill. That is why, even at the risk of boring the minister, even at the risk of repetitious argument which may be upsetting to him, I am afraid that he will have to bear with me for the short time I intend to speak.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, you are mistaken; I do
not have to.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I had not the pleasure of
being here when the minister was in charge of a somewhat similar department during the last war, but from what I have heard from all sides of the house and from people outside the house there can be no doubt at all that the minister earned the very highest recommendation for the way he did his job. That is very encouraging, but in spite of that we must examine the powers he is going to exercise in fulfilling these new duties. Since I have been fortunate enough to be in a position to watch the minister I have realized that when people criticize him, whether they call him a grand Pooh-Bah or anything else, it is just like water on a duck's back. He just smiles and does not take any interest in what they are saying. Why, I believe he has walked out on me. Well, I do not have very much to add to the debate to keep him in the house anyway, so I do mot blame him, and any hon. member who feels1 so inclined may follow him. I believe there may be some truth in the statement I have heard that the minister does not care very much for parliament.
The principle of this bill is the matter we have to examine closely. What is it intended for? Well, obviously it is intended to take care of a tremendous emergency in the country, an emergency the government recognizes, an emergency the people must recognize and1 which parliament is asked to recognize, but which the government says does not exist. Having listened as carefully as I could since parliament met, the only

Defence Production Act thing that I can gather is that we are not in a state of emergency. We have been told that this war is here, but it is not here. It is here, but you do not see it, like the old shell game. I am a little puzzled about that, but as far as I can see we are in a state of emergency and the government will not admit it. When the President of the United States saw the situation which existed last December he called the play and declared a state of national emergency. If this situation is as serious as it would appear to be, I think it is time this government got up and told this country that we are now facing a national emergency. The only reason for requesting the type of powers such as those contained in this bill is that there is a national emergency. What do we find, Mr. Speaker, in the bill? We find that the bill sets up, as I said before, a great dictatorship. All one has to do is to glance over the various sections and one sees powers such as were never invoked, from what I have read, by this parliament before.
The bill that was introduced here in September is merely a "piker" compared to this bill. In introducing that bill the minister said, as recorded on page 448 of Hansard of September 8, 1950:
. . . we must have the authority to control all aspects of production, supply and distribution, use and prices of essential materials and services.
The bill which was passed at that time was supposed to take care of everything. Now, that bill has been scrapped, and this new bill is being substituted for it. At the time the minister was introducing that Essential Materials (Defence) Act, he said, again at page 448 of Hansard:
We believe that, barring a major emergency, the powers of the act will be sufficient to cope with the problem we anticipate. It is possible that Canada will face greater difficulties over the next eighteen months than are indicated at the present time. If that turns out to be the case, we will bring the facts before parliament and ask for the additional authority to cope with the situation.
It is less than six months since the minister said that, Mr. Speaker. Has the situation changed to such an extent during the past six months that such a measure as is indicated by this bill is justified? Is the minister to be created an absolute dictator because of the emergency that has come about in the last six months? If so, let us be told about it; let the country be told about it. All we have so far is a bet there is not going to be any war. If we are not going to have a war, why must we strangle the whole economy of the country?-because that is what this bill means.
Let me go through a couple of sections. I believe I am not permitted to actually read

the sections, but I believe I can refer to some of the sections without reading them in order to describe to you what I mean. For instance, in section 5 there is a tremendous over-all power. This section empowers the minister to authorize any person on his behalf to do any act or thing or to exercise any powers that the minister may do or exercise under this act. The minister has practically any power you may mention under this particular act. Practically all the paragraphs start off with the words "the minister may" or "the minister shall".


Mr.   Mc@: They are all numbered, too.


Gordon Francis Higgins: They are all numbered. Would you like me to read them to you?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: No, but I observe that is what your party has been doing.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What have we been doing?


George James McIlraith: It is just a lot of stalling.


Gordon Francis Higgins: If the hon. member suggests I am stalling, I should like him to indicate his reasons for saying so. Have I said anything to indicate that I am stalling?


George James McIlraith: It is all on the record.


George Alexander Drew: No one is supposed to raise a question at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Carry on, my boy, carry on.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am not going to put up with any suggestion that I am stalling, whatever may have been indicated by any person before-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think you are doing your best.


Gordon Francis Higgins: If the hon, member wishes to make that assertion, I want to know what he means.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think you are doing your best.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Praise from Caesar, Mr. Speaker, is praise indeed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It depends on what Caesar meant.


Gordon Francis Higgins: There is a particular paragraph in this act which gives the minister power, even when a person does not want to enter into a government contract, does not want to have a-ny part of a government contract, to compel him to make that contract. The minister can compel him to do things against his will. If that person does not do them, the minister can take possession of his premises. If he does do them, but does not do them to the satisfaction of the minister, he

can be penalized; his assets can be attached. A man's whole business can be ruined because of the caprice of the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Dreadful, dreadful.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Well, the power is there. I think the minister will agree with that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, sure.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I do not believe the minister would exercise a power of that kind improperly, Mr. Speaker. I am sure he would exercise it the way he has done in the past. But it is quite possible the minister may appoint someone else to do it. The other person would have all the powers of the minister, as I read the bill, and he might not like a person whose business has been taken over. The person might be penalized by this deputy of the minister. I believe that is in the act. If the minister picks an improper deputy it may be that, for reasons other than wanting to do the proper thing, for political reasons, the deputy may take action. There is nothing to stop him, nothing at all to prevent it, because the discretion is entirely with the minister.
This comes right back to the corporations that are set up. There are some ten or twelve corporations, I believe, included in this act. The minister has power to set up other corporations which he may deem necessary. If I read the act correctly, those corporations do not come within the jurisdiction of parliament at all. Parliament has very little, if any, control over them. It is the minister who controls them and, as the member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) said tonight, it would be nearly two years afterwards before we would know what had become of all the powers that had been exercised. That brings me back, Mr. Speaker, to something else. I am going to read something, but it is not very long. It is a resolution which reads as follows:
Whereas it is occasionally to the advantage of the nation to create crown corporations permitting the state to exploit certain commercial enterprises or to furnish certain services, without political interference,
Whereas the freedom enjoyed by these companies prevents, too often, successful inquiry by ministers and members of parliament as to the activities and the administration of the said corporation,
Whereas in a democracy any organ of the state must be subject to the inspection, control and authority of the government, responsible to the people,
It is therefore resolved that the Canadian Federation of Young Liberals is in favour of making all crown corporations completely responsible to the cabinet and subject to the inspection, control and authority of parliament.	jj
Defence Production Act
I think that is an excellent resolution, Mr. Speaker. It was passed at the national convention of the Young Liberal Federation of Canada at Montreal on October 12, 13 or 14 of 1949. I feel that that is a resolution that this whole parliament and all the members could endorse.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did you see what the young Tories passed?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Was it a nasty one? After all. we cannot say that all the wisdom of the ages is garnered in the older people, Mr. Speaker. We must give credit to the younger people of the nation for some wisdom and knowledge. If that joint meeting of the wise young Liberals of 1949 passed such a resolution as this, surely the older Liberals, particularly the titular chieftain of the Liberal party-although he is not formally described in that capacity; we know him as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) -will give effect to that resolution. I believe he feels that was a resolution which should have been passed but he does not seem to act upon it or the Liberal party does not. Why, I do not know.
There is in this bill another paragraph that is to me extremely obnoxious indeed. It is subsection 2 of section 21. That is the section that deals with the minister's going into a business. He may go into a business and examine the records of a business and on his own, if he is not satisfied with the way the business is being carried on or the way the contract is being carried out, he himself has the power, as I read it, to reduce the amount of the contract price. As to a legal contract that he has entered into, if he feels so inclined he is entitled, under this provision, to reduce the amount to be paid the contractor. I think that is a most extraordinary power. Then there is an over-all power in that, under the general description, contained in this act of what essential defence-supplies are, it is possible-I do not say probable-that a man's motor car might be taken. It is possible that a man's house might be requisitioned. Literally, the minister has the power to take the clothes off a man's back, if he so determines. That is exactly what the act gives him power to do. There can be no question about that. Then we have section 27, which is a most extraordinarily worded one. I do not know if I am permitted to refer to its wording, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Perhaps I could clarify the matter for the hon.

Defence Production Act member by quoting citation 656 of Beau-chesne's third edition:
On the motion for the second reading, it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the bill.
Perhaps that will help the hon. member.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I understand that I may refer to it generally, Mr. Speaker, without going into the specific wording. I presume that is what you intended to convey to me.
By that particular section that I was dealing with, the minister may, if he is satisfied that a person, who has entered into a contract has failed or is even likely to fail-and he determines whether the man is likely to fail-to perform the contract in a businesslike and efficient manner, or if he has failed to keep proper and detailed records-that is, if the minister is satisfied; it is the minister all the way through-he may authorize some person who is named as a controller to go in and take possession of the business and operate it. Then it goes further, Mr. Speaker, and it says, as I understand it, that the controller, if he makes any mistakes, is not to be responsible for them to the owner. In addition, if the owner is required against his will to store materials, even of his own business, and if any of those materials are lost, he himself is responsible for the loss. This is a most extraordinarily worded document.
The final part that I wish to deal with is (this. The act continues until 1956. But the [DOT]governor in council may make ordiers and! regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of this act. In other words, there is a direct by-pass of parliament all the way through. If this act is to be an act of the parliament of this country under which the people of this country are to have their properties requisitioned, and maybe their persons, that is practically suspending habeas corpus; then the only way that the people of Canada can have the right to protection against the dictatorial powers that the minister will be given under this act is by the insertion in the act of a provision that the minister must report to parliament at regular intervals as to what is happening, and that parliament should have a say in what is happening. I do not mention that point in any idle manner. I mention it in all honesty and all sincerity, so far as I am concerned. It seems to me that no matter how well intentioned a man may be-it is said that power tends to corrupt, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely- it is impossible for any man to have these tremendous powers placed upon his shoulders and not in some way abuse them; that should not be expected. It is beyond a human being's will power not to abuse them. Unconsciously one must do so.
[The Acting Speaker.!
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, not only for the protection of the Canadian people but indeed for the protection of the minister himself, I feel we should have written into this act some provision whereby parliament will have some control of these tremendous powers that the minister will possess under the act.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have not taken part in the debate on this bill up to this time because I wanted all the time I could possibly get in order to give consideration to its terms and to the principle that is involved in it. I did speak briefly on the resolution which preceded the introduction of the bill, and at that time I think I assured the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) of my good will toward them personally and toward the thing which they had set up to do. I did mention at that time, Mr. Speaker, that I appreciated the democratic way in which the Prime Minister had set about seeking extraordinary powers to clothe the minister with that authority under which he could meet an emergency situation.
I still believe that the Prime Minister was quite right in not proclaiming the War Measures Act. I believe it is far more democratic the way he has set out to do it. But at the same time I do believe, as I suggested when I spoke on the resolution, that it is the wrong principle to ask parliament to clothe a minister and a department with all the powers that may possibly be needed over a long period of time when it is quite possible for parliament to grant sufficient powers at this time to meet the present need, and then at another stage to grant further powers if it is deemed necessary that they be granted.
I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce once more that I have the highest regard for him personally. What I say tonight I am going to direct to him in the most friendly fashion, with all the good will that I can possibly muster. I think I have made it known to him on numerous occasions that I have no malice whatever toward him; but I do believe that the minister has unnecessarily brought criticism upon himself by asking for too wide powers, not only on this occasion but on former occasions, and I think I have told him across the floor of the house here my feelings on other occasions in that respect.
I wonder what the people of this country would say if they were made fully aware of the powers that the government is asking this parliament to vest in a minister and his deputies and personnel in the new department if parliament were to grant them without question. I can just envision the newspapers across the country saying:	What

kind of opposition have we got down there in parliament? Are those fellows, just on mere suggestion from the government, prepared to shoulder off their responsibilities on to somebody else and to say: Go to it; we do not want any responsibility at all; or are you all down there trying to look after the best interests of the people of this country? I propose that we should, as members of parliament, representing the people, take our responsibilities. We should not try to push them off on the shoulders of somebody else. I propose to be prepared to take my responsibility as a member of this House of Commons in whatever has to be done to meet this situation which has been called a serious emergency situation.
I do not want anybody to feel that I am wishing to shove it off on the minister or the government. Whatever powers are needed to meet the emergency I am prepared to consider handing over to the minister and the government. Anything that is within the competence of this parliament to do to help the government to meet this present situation I think we are bound to do, but I do not think we are bound to do any more than that in this the first stage. I say that, Mr. Speaker, advisedly and I say it for this reason. If any more serious emergency does arise, the government always has an ace in the hole, an ace up its sleeve, in the form of the War Measures Act. They can proclaim it in a moment and deal with a situation that might arise, which is now unforeseen, or for which parliament has not at this stage provided, simply by passing orders in council under the War Measures Act. That is one of the reasons why I feel loath at this time to agree to handing over all of these powers.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) gave this afternoon what I thought was a very complete analysis of the bill and a restrained criticism. At that time he made what I thought were reasonable suggestions. Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) have already had a chance to consider those suggestions. They may be prepared to bring in some amendments to the bill which will embody what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has requested. But I do think, Mr. Speaker, that, if they have, then it will not hurt to have this bill go over to the first of the week to give them a chance to consider further the request of the opposition and see if they cannot bring in something which will more nearly be acceptable to us all.
I am not ashamed for one second to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am determined it shall go over until the first of the week. I am not
Defence Production Act doing it just for the purpose of being stubborn, or of trying to obstruct. If the matter is as serious as the bill is purported to be, and if the situation in the country is as serious as it is purported to be, then it is serious enough to warrant more than just one day's debate on this matter.
There are a good many things that have occurred to me as a result of the debate that has gone on today that I would like further time to consider in my own mind. Our group has not taken any part in the debate today on second reading for the very reason that we wanted to have just as full information as we could possibly get before we voted on such an important bill as this.
I want to make it abundantly clear to the minister that our position is and has been thus. Whatever powers are needed to meet this present situation he ought to have; but the question in our minds is just how much does he need? That is the principle that is at stake. Should parliament be prepared to give over wide enough powers to meet a hot war in a time when we are not in a hot war, and when everybody in the country is hoping that there will not be a war at all? I do not mean to say that the people of the country are living in any fool's paradise; but let me say that very few people in the country have in their minds anything like a picture of the true situation. I believe that one could sum up their views about this present emergency in the way that a correspondent did for me the other day in a letter when he said something like this. I cannot just remember the exact words, but he did say: I wonder if I shall live long enough to see the start of this war that they have been talking about for so long, and about which a few of us are beginning to plan for? That is just about the way a good many people throughout the country think. They are not prepared. As the minister said in Chicago the other day, and I think he reiterated it here today: You cannot go too far ahead of the people. I think he issued this challenge: Are you prepared to say that labour, the people generally, including all sections of Canada, are prepared to submit to the regimen of over-all controls? He said: Until such time as they are, you cannot make them stick.
That situation applies to the terms of this bill, just the same. What attitude will business take throughout this country? What attitude will industry take, when they see us toiling over the terms of the bill? They will say to themselves: Do those fellows ever give consideration to realities, or are they just prepared to rubber-stamp anything the government puts in front of them, simply because the government may think that an

Defence Production Act emergency situation may develop, and that it will be so intense that they will have to have those powers?
The businessman, the industrialist who is operating a business, will see section 27 and he will naturally ask himself the question- and he will ask us that question when he gets the chance-"Do you fellows actually believe that you have got to force industry and business in this country to do things now? Why do you not try a little inducement, first? Then if we fall down, come in with something that will compel us to do what you want".
Somehow I cannot quite make these two attitudes jibe. It was not many days ago that we were talking in the House of Commons about manpower. I cannot help recalling the fact that a good many spokesmen on the government side said, "Oh, we are not ready for that sort of thing yet. We think we can get more out of the Canadian people, so far as manpower is concerned, by the voluntary method." Now you come along with a bill like this and say, "We are going to compel every businessman and very industrialist in the country to toe the mark that is drawn by the Minister of Trade and Commerce." How do you reconcile those two attitudes? I want to know that.
If we are going to meet an emergency situation we ought to go all-out to meet it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And be very tender with the
businessmen, eh?


Solon Earl Low: I do not say that we should be
tender. But let us be consistent

let us be consistent; that is the point. And there is only one way to be consistent, and that is that if we take the position that we can get the best out of people by a process of inducement, we should try some inducement. Then, when that fails, let us go out after the other thing.
I will suggest to the minister this, that he is a master at dealing with men. I am satisfied he knows I am right when I say that if he makes an appeal to the industrialists and businessmen of this country for certain things he will just about get one hundred per cent of what he asks for, without compelling them. I do not think there would be any question about it-and I think also that I am paying the minister a high compliment when I say that.
I believe that without going into detail- and I have many of them before me which I have not time to discuss this evening-I should suggest that both of the ministers who are here this evening, listening, in the last minutes of this day, should take into


consideration what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked earlier today.
Let me review what he asked, for the benefit of the house. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) did agree provision should be made for an annual report. That is good. But I believe also that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was making a most reasonable request when he asked, "Do you not think you had better reconsider the time limit?" If the defence program is designed to cover a period of three years, then why make provision in this measure for five years, almost double the time you expect your defence program to cover?
I have not heard anything in the debate thus far to change my mind on that matter. I thin-k we should relate the two in some way, and not ask that these provisions cover too long a time.
He made the further suggestion that consideration be given to dividing the powers in this field, by setting up a list of those the minister needs right now, and which he could now justify, alongside another group which could be proclaimed when the need arose, and the powers with respect to which could be taken by the minister to meet whatever emergency he might have to meet at that time.
That would at least recognize the principle I have already suggested, and that is that we would try to dio as much as we possibly can by the principle of inducement, and to leave compulsion for the time being, until it has to be used. I would not be prepared to write that list, because I know it would be difficult. I am not even sure that it could be written. However, it certainly is a suggestion that could be studied over the week end. Perhaps the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be able to make some suggestion at the first of next week to set our minds at rest in that respect.
I am in agreement with the main principle of the bill. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is also in agreement with it-in fact everyone who spoke today probably was. But we did make reservations when we spoke on the resolution stage, and one of those reservations was: Let us not go beyond what we need now. Parliament will be in session for months to come and can be called back quickly, in case of emergency. When we need to give the minister further powers, let us give them to him. Let me say once again, in a friendly way, to the Minister of Trade and1 Commerce; for goodness' sake

do not give these fellows ammunition to throw back at you, and to claim that you are a dictator.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do you mean the Tories?


Solon Earl Low: I am not suggesting who they are; but that is what I am saying.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They could not throw anything.


Solon Earl Low: Protect yourself in that way.
I wonder if I may call it eleven o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Low the debate was adjourned.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Fournier (Hull): On Monday we will continue this debate, with the hope that we may reach a decision, Then we will take up Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935; Bill No. 6, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways, and Bill No. 76, to amend the Radio Act, 1938.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 5, 1951